Besslers Wheel By Alex
I have spent sometime studying Besslers wheels and I am going to go through the ones I used to combined to get a possible working wheel.
First I would like to say thank the members/staff etc... for the information this forum has supplied for me. Also I praise our Heavnly Father for the incredibly inspiration he gives me...
MT 10: This picture has been drawn backwards and upside down, when correctly positioned the arms/levers being curved focus all the of weight to the end of the lever creating a more stronger effect, so MT 10 can be used in the wheel, also note that with the levers being curved, then can be positioned like the levers in MT 31 so the curved part can rest on the axel allowing the weight at the end to not face upwards when resting.
Example:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi30.tinypic.com%2F2uh22px.jpg&hash=ace7f4beeccc5cf0c9c6a304176e342bf25f6c1a)
MT 14: The connection by the small weights lifting the cross tensions is a good idea, but there is to much friction on the pull and there is too many weights being used to pull just one cross tension up, the bottom weights serve no purpose, they just hang there, but there is something good to say about this which is that the weight connections are good, but something is missing as will be seen?
MT 15 This wheel works in the same way as MT 14 except that longer poles are used which is good because the weight in a wheel that further from the axel is the main weight to turn the wheel.
MT 25: This wheel is good, and this time the weights at the bottom are doing some work as well as the weights at the top.
Now gather all of the good points in the above wheels.
MT 10: Curved Levers
MT 14: Cross Tensions
MT 15: Making the cross tensions longer than the weights used for pulling
MT 25: Both top and bottom of the wheel are doing work to shift the weights
Now let?s start putting this wheel together?
MT 10: (I have not curved the levers as they will be hard to see as my drawings progress)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi32.tinypic.com%2F2zipn9i.jpg&hash=b386c7b5f866b7d20619fe816bc849806be41f7c)
MT 10 14:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi26.tinypic.com%2Fvcuq2c.jpg&hash=a67dd80dc86d295278b7bbbabce37476db29dd14)
MT 10 14 15:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi30.tinypic.com%2F29uwvb8.jpg&hash=1175a71c777a6b73036b049d2ae551cd67aefe6f)
MT 10 14 15 25:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.tinypic.com%2Ff0zrlc.jpg&hash=5d42022c7f494383ddb8c15fe803191df5870bbc)
This is how the wheel works:
When the inner weight falls out at the top and the inner weight at the bottom falls in they drive/push the long tension in at the bottom and pull out at the top; weights acting in pairs and also pair of pairs acting together. The weights on the long tension can also be heavier than the inner weights. Reason for this is the strength of the mechanism due to its position of levers?
A Video shall be posted soon of the wheel in rotation soon.
I am not happy yet though as all of the important wheels are not in it.
The following MT?s are needed for this wheel in my opinion.
MT: 11 MT: 18 MT: 19/20 MT: 27
If I were to improve the wheel even more I can add MT 19/20 also using curved levers like MT 10 and it will look like this.
http://i31.tinypic.com/1178h1h.jpg
Now here is something very interesting I found about MT 27
? Bessler wrote:
MT27... This is the previous model slightly larger and altered: A are the levers interrupted at B and having a heart-weight at C, and D are the straps, or cords, and chains. It needs no further, lengthier explanation. This view shows what the thing might do if several things of this sort were placed next to one another along an axle-shaft.
Well its obvious it wont do anything on its own unless somthing was put with it, so what does beesler really mean? Well if you place this mechanism 4 times around an axel/shaft, look what you get...
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi28.tinypic.com%2F2uf6e12.jpg&hash=0de1c87ea76f5c5f7f546052a6fc5f7c36312ad1)
If anyone wants to build this wheel, then they must ask me on PM or Email.
Also there are a few problems which are not shown in the drawing which I will not mention here, rather, you will have to ask me privately, really its not important unless you are building in which you will become stuck.
P.S For showing you this, I would greatly appreciate anything interesting about theses wheels I might not know and any other help would be great, thanks...
Many thanks Alex !
I will now begin to simulate these wheels with WM2D.
What is the heart type thing ?
Is this a weight ?
Are there only rods in these wheels
or also ropes ?
I am going to use now only rods for the simulation,
because it is much easier to setup.
I still don?t understand how to design pulleys in WM2D.
Maybe someone can teach me how to do this ?
Do you have to first use a wheel and then click the pulley
icon and fix the pulley rope to the wheel ???
I don?t know if you all did see my last movie from yeasterday night,
where I simulated the basic wheel of P-Motion, which does not work
and always balances out...see here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4589.msg96537.html#msg96537
Regards, Stefan.
Okay, I have set this topic sticky and renamed the old
topic to:
Alex's MT Combination
So I think it is best this here should now be the main new topic to discuss Alex?s theory
further over here as it also has the right topic name:
Bessler Wheel Theory by Alex
Now back to the WM2D simulation.....
I don't know how practical wm2d but you could also try Sketchup in combination with SketchyPhysics. The advantage is that it's true 3d and imo shapes are easier to build and what not. I'm currently playing around with it...here's some showcasing
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=sketchy+physics
Broli,
cool,
definately the way to go in 3D then !
This is what all gravity machine builders have been waited for !
But for today still on with WM2D.
Many thanks for this great tip.
Regards, Stefan.
Stefan,
[A topic you are watching has been marked as a sticky topic by hartiberlin.]
Been here and lurked for the last three years, never seen this before, can you explain to a "Newbie" what a sticky topic is?
This is as bad as having someone ask me "how long has this wind been blowing?" I tell the I do not know as I have only lived here since 1974.
Ralph
I tried now to model the
MT 10 14 15 25 version in WM2D,
but still having difficulties.
Well, it seems nothing is working without springs.
Also a second principle could be used:
centrifugal forces in sync with the wheel rotation.
But this is even harder to build, as you have to
sync the inertia and RPM of the wheel exactly to the
centrifugal forces from weights on rods inside the wheel.
I am too tired now to finish the modeling.
Will continue this evening and post then my results as a video.
Regards, Stefan.
A video of my wheel is now possible as some of the lever mechanism is fastned and wont fall, I dont have weights yet but I can attach marbles to pretend they are weights infact its funny because you dont even need weights, if the levers were more heavy that the wheel, the wheel would run without weights :D
Here is the footage of my wheel, you dont see the mechanism as it will give to much away on building it as I want some protection as you assume you understand that and also to many people on youtube will see how it works so...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX2Y3zF5zPM
It looks nice, I want to have a go at it with sketchup ;).
Yeah ok, I can't wait until I have the weights Im so excited about it...
Quote from: Alexioco on May 15, 2008, 10:01:18 AM
Yeah ok, I can't wait until I have the weights Im so excited about it...
Hi Alexioco,
Can you use small (or appropiate size) plastic bags filled with wet sand as weights?
rgds, Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on May 15, 2008, 11:19:12 AM
Hi Alexioco,
Can you use small (or appropiate size) plastic bags filled with wet sand as weights?
rgds, Gyula
sounds like a good idea to me, they would do for now, until i can get some weights, problem is, I have no sand, unless i use soil?
You also seem to have marbles, just those in the plastic bags. You have come this far and can't even be creative on using improvised weights :-[.
Quote from: broli on May 15, 2008, 11:43:49 AM
You also seem to have marbles, just those in the plastic bags. You have come this far and can't even be creative on using improvised weights :-[.
lol i dont have enough marbles...
i have about 10 and i need atleast 4 for a good weight, any other ideas?
Quote from: Alexioco on May 15, 2008, 11:41:12 AM
sounds like a good idea to me, they would do for now, until i can get some weights, problem is, I have no sand, unless i use soil?
Of course any soil from any garden or sidestreets (lol) would do for these tests till the correct weights arrive.
Use a kitchen scale to make uniformly weighted bags or whatever you need.
Quote from: gyulasun on May 15, 2008, 11:52:17 AM
Of course any soil from any garden or sidestreets (lol) would do for these tests till the correct weights arrive.
Use a kitchen scale to make uniformly weighted bags or whatever you need.
your starting to make me excited more about my wheel now lol
right im gonna see what I can do...
Weights: sugar,rocks,water, tools...
Containers: small plastic bags,small medicine flasks,bottles....
Strapping: Ductape, Electrical wire, sewing wire, rubber band....
Quote from: broli on May 15, 2008, 11:55:18 AM
Weights: sugar,rocks,water, tools...
Containers: small plastic bags,small medicine flasks,bottles....
Strapping: Ductape, Electrical wire, sewing wire, rubber band....
Weights: water,
Containers: small medicine flasks..
Strapping: lid lol
I might try that, if I can get 8 small medicine flasks :p
Hay Alex
There are many things that can be used as weights. A cut up bar of soap, butter knives from the kitchen, if you have a fishing box you have lead fishing weights. Heck! I once show some people how to do leather tooling with rocks and sticks that I just picked up from the ground.
Quote from: AB Hammer on May 15, 2008, 12:10:35 PM
Hay Alex
There are many things that can be used as weights. A cut up bar of soap, butter knives from the kitchen, if you have a fishing box you have lead fishing weights. Heck! I once show some people how to do leather tooling with rocks and sticks that I just picked up from the ground.
you will not beleive what i have just found out about my wheel, you just wont belive this.
when I move a lever out at the bottom its takes about 5 times more effort than pushing it in at the top, I can move the lever in at the bottom with a piece of paper holding it with one hand, at the top you have to push quite hard, meaning a heavy weight can lift a light weight, i will soon post a video of this, my wheel has overunity power...
Im off to college now for music, im not quite sure how i have achieved this so if you can find out by the pictures, that would be great, wont be too long, cya
Alex,
Waiting for weights, making wheels of paper and cardboard, using bags of sand for weights, etc!
Come and man! is your resources, "hands on skill" and innovation really that limited? Sorry but I find your "YouTube" presentation lacking!
Weights, in increments of ounces can be found at at any department store in the sporting section called fishing sinkers. Need something heavier, head for the exercise section and pick up some barbell disks. I use 2-1/2 and 5 pounders. I have over a hundred pounds worth. Locate your nearest metal and fabricator dealer, these usually operate a recycle yard. where you can by gears, axles, sprockets, bearings and what ever your innovation can utilize. You then purchase it by the pound!
Nuts, bolts, all-thread, small bearings, pulleys, aviation cable, etc can be found at any Ace Hardware store or its equivalent. I often go to the above describe places, they will ask "can I help you?" I say no! I am simply browsing until what I can utilized finds me.
Cut your wheels or disks from MDF (Medium Density Fiberboard) select a thickness from 3/8" to 3/4" thick, The larger the disk or amount of weight calls for thicker discs. Industrial grade MDF comes in 48 X 97" sizes, you can cut two 48" disks from them which you cannot do with a standard 4 x 8' sheet. My 70" wheel is made of laminated !/2" material for a disk thickness of 1"...
IMO you will never subjectively prove anything playing with inappropriate and unsubstantial construction material. You have already stated that "it turned a couple of turns before it fell apart. Build yourself or trust some one else to build you a test stand and wheel. I recommend do less than 3' in diameter. Something large enough that you can readily get your hands on and in. Use at least a 7/8" axle and appropriate pillow or flange bearings. I prefer Flange as I believe they are more stable and aesthetic looking to the eye.
You can use such a test bed and wheel over and over until the disks begin to look like Limburger cheese, then simply replace the disks. I have three such test beds for different applications, one is made from an old clothes dryer giving me an open face with no axle impediment (split axle) . the other is simply a rectangular box that will hold up to a 3' wheel supported by pillow bearings. This unit is used when "Lay axles" ( Aka jack shafts) are required for sprockets, chain and or gearing.
Rule # 1: Don't take the chance of missing the possible attributes of a design, simply because you did not build it of craftsman quality and material capable of meeting the structural need.
Now you are learning why I fabricate for those with viable designs, but do not have the skills, resources, and innovation to carry it out for themselves.
Remember my Motto; For me WM2D stands for Wood, Metal, & 2 Days...
Ralph
Alex,
[meaning a heavy weight can lift a light weight,]
A heavy weight can lift a light weight???? Now Jokingly, you are going to college and finding this out with your home experiments? Please explain, as I have never experienced a situation where a heavy weight would not "over balance" a lighter one. I have emphasized over balance, as we all know it depends upon the placing of the fulcrum.
Ralph
Quote from: rlortie on May 15, 2008, 12:57:15 AM
Stefan,
[A topic you are watching has been marked as a sticky topic by hartiberlin.]
Been here and lurked for the last three years, never seen this before, can you explain to a "Newbie" what a sticky topic is?
This is as bad as having someone ask me "how long has this wind been blowing?" I tell the I do not know as I have only lived here since 1974.
Ralph
Hi Ralph,
a sticky post is a thread that remains at the top of the forum board,
so when nobody is posting in it ,it will not go down in the index, but stay at the top.
I put it on sticky, if something is important and also new users should see it although
there were no messages added lately..
P.S: AM now back at the PC.
I have to recreate the model with WM2D more accurately by using all the same
lengths of rods.
I have to somehow do it all via copying and pasting.
Just putting in a few rods without having them all the exact same length
is getting too much wobble and nonworking levers...
@Alex,
thanks for the video.
But if your principle really worked, why do you have to push it pretty
tight with your hands ?
Shouldn?t it have almost spun from itsself ?
Yes, try to buy some tablesalt or sugar
and put this in some small plastic bags and use some Tesa tape
to fix these bags onto the rods.
Then you will probably see, that it will balance out.
I am pretty sure now already, but I will keep on trying a few hours
more.
If this will not work out, then I will try to see, how I can incorporate spings
into this design to store the energy movement of the weights.
Regards, Stefan.
@Stefan;
Could you show screenshots of what you're currently have so I can try a sketchup doodle.
Quote from: rlortie on May 15, 2008, 12:51:59 PM
Alex,
[meaning a heavy weight can lift a light weight,]
A heavy weight can lift a light weight???? Now Jokingly, you are going to college and finding this out with your home experiments? Please explain, as I have never experienced a situation where a heavy weight would not "over balance" a lighter one. I have emphasized over balance, as we all know it depends upon the placing of the fulcrum.
Ralph
lol sorry, I meant that a lighter weight can lift a heavier one and sorry if my footage is not good enough for you...
Alex,what are you waiting for ?
Just show the backside in a picture or video and attach
your name to it.
We already all know, that it is your wheel, so what are you waiting for ?
Okay, I will post a few still pics, of what I am currently working on.
Just got a hang out of it, how a pulley system works in WM2D.
Now I hopefully can easily prove, that the Milkovic pendulum system works
overunity.
Stay tuned.
Still fighting with rotating complex objects in WM2D down to 1 degree
accuracy...
I try to first design one quarter of the wheel and then try to copy
this side and try to rotate it... but the rotation can only done by hand
and not with numbers...damn..
Regards, Stefan.
Here are 2 pics.
the first is the Alex design.
But when I run the simulation
the blue bigger rods will fall down all in all
in their position versus the wheel,
so this just runs for about 3/4 of a revolution and then reverses.
Maybe it is not yet accurately designed.
I have to retry it better with all rods being the same length and all
angles being the same, etc...
The second pic is some of experiment with spings,
but again, I must know, how to fix the springs at exactly the same
angle and length, etc...I need to redo it all
by just designing first one quarter of the wheel
and then copying this part and then rotate the whole
part into 90 degrees rotated and the place it back into the wheel.
Stay tuned.
Regards, Stefan.
Things to do:
Attach a rim and other wheel
Attach weights
You do not need a picture of my wheel to see how it works, I have shown you alot already, if you could just be greatful for what I have shown you and wait until im ready then I will post the rest...
Here is a movie of my trial:
http://overunity.com/alexioco/alexioco_harti_20.avi
It is a 640x480 res Divx.com codec encoded AVI movie.
So everybody gets the hang out of it,
how it is suposed to work...
Well, if I add guidance for the blue bars (beams),
then the wheel will not turn..
but I have to try real slots, but I first have to try out, how
I can design these slots onto the blue bars...
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: Alexioco on May 15, 2008, 03:55:39 PM
Things to do:
Attach a rim and other wheel
Attach weights
Why do I need a rim and where and what other wheel ?
The weights are the blue balls and the light blue bars...
Look at the posted movie.
talking about me
WOW lmao, that wheel it completly wrong, it fell all over the place, I have an animation for you, how do i upload footage here?
You can upload over here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=upload
up to 5 Mbytes.
Otherwise if bigger, please use the free
rapidshare.de
or
megaupload.com
Many thanks.
Alex,
P.S. YOu can use
Gif Movie gear freely for 30 days to scale down and optimze
GIF animations.
It is one of the best software for optimizing GIF animations.
Highly recommended:
http://www.gamani.com/
Regards, Stefan.
Thanks, thats very helpful :)
G'day Stefan,
I have an animation in WM2D here I would like to share. The rendering device in WM2D is incapable of rendering the simulation properly.
I see you are using a different format. How do I do this, alternatively if I send you the simulation can you render it for me. I think everyone ought to see this one.
Hans von Lieven
G'day all,
For those of you that have WM2D I have uploaded the simulation onto my website.
http://keelytech.com/overunity/basicwheelcomponents1.wm2d
Hans von Lieven
Okay, here is now Alex?s animation he just did send me via email.
http://overunity.com/alexioco/Alexioco_wheel_Animation.wmv
Regards, Stefan.
What do you think?
That it 10 drawings of the wheel I did ot make that, took me ages...
I make a point not to discuss private posts or even refer to them. But in this case I am going to make and exception!
So much of this design has been freely shared by its inventor, it is at the point that a certain degree of my confidential knowledge is now of public record. I have been aware of this design since May 9th. I was asked to evaluate and give my opinion which shall remain confidential.
With all this time spent on WM2D simulation discussion, (which is driving me up the wall) I could have fabricated it. Using readily available "Off the shelf" material I would have had it completed three days ago. Matter of speaking, all I would have to do is install the levers to an already existing test stand using a 38" open faced disk with attached rim.
Now you are going to ask; Well why have I not done so??? Because I gave my word I would not get involved.
It simply irritates the (you know what out of me) to see a viable design not researched to its limit due to lack of resources and or empirical aptitude to fabricate. I ask myself; how many times without public knowledge could this have happened in the past, a working idea thrown aside because the inventor could not build it???
As can be verified above with Stefan's simulation run, something is askew. I know what it is and I have my doubts if WM2D is capable of rectifying the problem. I do hope he can, but I am not holding my breath!
Ralph
You are loyal Ralph and I trust you, if you really want to then you may also build it, please keep me up todate and there are a few things I can tell you to make sure the wheel is made correctly, up to you though, if so then consult me by email.
Also I am capable of making my wheel, and its not long til its complete, im a newbie to this you know thats why its taken me so long, its not like i am as good as you...
Quote from: Alexioco on May 15, 2008, 05:38:23 PM
What do you think?
That it 10 drawings of the wheel I did ot make that, took me ages...
Hi Alex,
many thanks for the hard work to make the animation.
But why don?t you show us the backside of your wheel
just on video in youtube ?
Everybody knows now, that you are the re-inventor of this
MT combination, so what are you waiting for ?
Just post your real name to it and stick it onto your pictures and videos
and no one can steal it anymore from you...
@Hans. I have just loaded your design and reset the Collide, Not collide
settings for all the weights and holders...
The first few frames it runs okay and then it slows down...
I can post a movie later of it..
Many thanks.
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 15, 2008, 05:04:00 PM
G'day Stefan,
I have an animation in WM2D here I would like to share. The rendering device in WM2D is incapable of rendering the simulation properly.
I see you are using a different format. How do I do this, alternatively if I send you the simulation can you render it for me. I think everyone ought to see this one.
Hans von Lieven
You need to install the free HUYUV codec
http://neuron2.net/www.math.berkeley.edu/benrg/huffyuv-2.1.1.zip
and put the framerate to 25 and the bitdeepth to 24 bits.
Then it first puts out a big AVI file which I load into
Virtualdub.org program and recompress to DIVX codec.
Somehow I can not directly compress to DIVX from inside WM2D...
Anyway, this way it works quite nicely...
Hope this helps.
Regards, Stefan.
P.S: Was nice to speak to you a few days ago,.
Keep up the good work Hans.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 15, 2008, 05:55:58 PM
Hi Alex,
many thanks for the hard work to make the animation.
But why don?t you show us the backside of your wheel
just on video in youtube ?
Everybody knows now, that you are the re-inventor of this
MT combination, so what are you waiting for ?
Just post your real name to it and stick it onto your pictures and videos
and no one can steal it anymore from you...
@Hans. I have just loaded your design and reset the Collide, Not collide
settings for all the weights and holders...
The first few frames it runs okay and then it slows down...
I can post a movie later of it..
Many thanks.
I want to build it first, its not like you will never see it, just give me time...
Once I have the wheel running, I will be more than happy to show you...
@Stefan,
There has to be a massive problem with WM2D. The wheel on my simulation uses initially a weight that spins the wheel in the opposite direction to the perceived imbalance. As expected the wheel slows down when the inertia of the weight is exhausted, stops and reverses.
Now, ift there is an imbalance this is exactly what should happen.
At this point there is NO more energy in the system from the initial push. The wheel now spins in the opposite direction and accelerates.
This is again what one would expect. It does this for about one full rotation and now something happens that it could not possibly do if the simulation so far is accurate. It slows down, stops and reverses again. There is no possible physics reason for this. I think the whole simulation is flawed.
Any comments?
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 15, 2008, 06:09:38 PM
@Stefan,
There has to be a massive problem with WM2D. The wheel on my simulation uses initially a weight that spins the wheel in the opposite direction to the perceived imbalance. As expected the wheel slows down when the inertia of the weight is exhausted, stops and reverses.
Now, ift there is an imbalance this is exactly what should happen.
At this point there is NO more energy in the system from the initial push. The wheel now spins in the opposite direction and accelerates.
This is again what one would expect. It does this for about one full rotation and now something happens that it could not possibly do if the simulation so far is accurate. It slows down, stops and reverses again. There is no possible physics reason for this. I think the whole simulation is flawed.
Any comments?
Hans von Lieven
hahahahahahaha lmao thats got me laughing, my wheel is a super wheel eh? hahahahaha
so it starts, then reveres, then stops and starts to reverse again? hahahahahaha
I wasn't talking about your wheel you idiot.
Hans
Hi Hans,
well there was a bug as it says physical constrains are not set right
and asked, if I wanted to continue.
Better use these green pin joints to join together parts,
as they have no bugs.
Well, as exspected your wheel bounces back and forth and will
come to stillstand after a while.
No wonder...
There are no springs in it and also you do not use any centrifugal forces.
So I guess I can save me the work to do a movie on this one.
Regards, Stefan.
oh........ Well with posting on my topic I thought you were lol
So you have an auto bio directional wheel with a mind of its own? lol nice one
and you dont have to be so rude...
Quote from: Alexioco on May 15, 2008, 05:44:33 PM
You are loyal Ralph and I trust you, if you really want to then you may also build it, please keep me up todate and there are a few things I can tell you to make sure the wheel is made correctly, up to you though, if so then consult me by email.
Also I am capable of making my wheel, and its not long til its complete, im a newbie to this you know thats why its taken me so long, its not like i am as good as you...
Alex,
Thank you for your trust! Yes I wish to to do some experimental research, first on your original concept and then with some augmentations I have in mind. I will keep you updated, but first I have some other obligations to catch up on. One being a promise to you! Two others relate to wheel builds that I must complete first. Just having your permission to get involved relieves me of a lot of stress!
As for you not being "as good as I"... Do not put yourself down, you may be better than I, you simply do not have the resources, tooling and experience. You have obviously proved you have a creative perceptive mind, the inability to carry through with the physical part is irrelevant as to how "good" you are.
Ralph
Quote from: rlortie on May 15, 2008, 06:25:07 PM
Alex,
Thank you for your trust! Yes I wish to to do some experimental research, first on your original concept and then with some augmentations I have in mind. I will keep you updated, but first I have some other obligations to catch up on. One being a promise to you! Two others relate to wheel builds that I must complete first. Just having your permission to get involved relieves me of a lot of stress!
As for you not being "as good as I"... Do not put yourself down, you may be better than I, you simply do not have the resources, tooling and experience. You have obviously proved you have a creative perceptive mind, the inability to carry through with the physical part is irrelevant as to how "good" you are.
Ralph
Sir, if I have caused you any stress then I'm ashamed of myself, Im sorry for being so secretive and I will indeed post my wheel once me and you have sorted it out privatly.
My sketchup build was a complete mess ;D. I should have planned it better before rushing head first. Time for the second attempt! Also thanks for the video footage, it helps a lot with what the idea is.
Hi All,
here is a picture of Hans?s wheel,
as someone without WM2D
could not have seen it yet.
Hans maybe you can incorporate springs in there to
save the potential energy from being wasted, if the weights
have gone down.
Also try once to fix the springs OUTSIDE the wheel.
If the springs are fixed to the wheel,
they also pull via themself the wheel into the other
direction , when the spring pulls the weight back.
This is not wanted as the wheel will thus
deaccelerate or rotate into the other direction until the weight
hits the wheel.
This I just realized.
So it can beneficial to fix the springs outside of the wheel with one
end and with the other end at the weight.
Hope this helps.
Regards, Stefan.
Looks likes quite an interesting mechanism, so it turns anti clockwise, at the moment in that drawing there are more weights on the left than right which will cause some movement, but after a little bit of movement there seems to be an equilibrium, how do you propose to over come this?
Alex,
[Sir, if I have caused you any stress then I'm ashamed of myself, Im sorry for being so secretive and I will indeed post my wheel once me and you have sorted it out privatly.]
Sir! I may be your elder, and I appreciate the intent. But when it comes to forum talk I am your peer, one of equal standing. And you did not cause my stress intentionally, it was brought on by myself due to concern of your innovation-invention not getting the recognition in a scientific manner I deemed it deserves.
As for posting your wheel, it appears to me that you have already done so! I will get a private message off to you later this evening.
On an open source forum things tend to go astray in a hand basket, sometimes in a hurry! I did not wish to see it happen here and to you!
Now that that is off my chest! I am wondering what if any connection there is between your design and the WM2D just posted by Stefan for Hans?
Ralph
Quote from: rlortie on May 15, 2008, 07:39:25 PM
Alex,
[Sir, if I have caused you any stress then I'm ashamed of myself, Im sorry for being so secretive and I will indeed post my wheel once me and you have sorted it out privatly.]
Sir! I may be your elder, and I appreciate the intent. But when it comes to forum talk I am your peer, one of equal standing. And you did not cause my stress intentionally, it was brought on by myself due to concern of your innovation-invention not getting the recognition in a scientific manner I deemed it deserves.
As for posting your wheel, it appears to me that you have already done so! I will get a private message off to you later this evening.
On an open source forum things tend to go astray in a hand basket, sometimes in a hurry! I did not wish to see it happen here and to you!
Now that that is off my chest! I am wondering what if any connection there is between your design and the WM2D just posted by Stefan for Hans?
Ralph
They are nothing like eachother lol, thats not to say that his or my ideas are bad, his is quite creative and I hope he goes far...
I talk to you on email it will be better...
Hans,
I am not familiar with your above WM2D concept, I fail to see why springs are mentioned.
I do not see any elliptical gradient therefore no "Out of Balance" a circle drawn around the perimeter of the weights is somewhat if not very symmetrical or a true circle.
I do see a very good example of Newtons law of motion part # 3.. [If any force acts on two bodies, the change in momentum in both of them is the same.] Now it is obvious that your design allows for accelerated impact in a counter clockwise rotation while being dampened (squeezed)on the ascending side.
Base on this assumption and if Newton is correct then WM2D should show a slight inertial acceleration compounding with the fall of each descending weight. That is of course will cease once the falling weights match velocity with the container they are falling in.
This is all I am going to comment on this subject as I do not see the relevance to thread title.
Ralph
Alex .. I suggest you take a deep breath - expect the same outcome that you laughed about with Hans WM sim attempt [he's obviously trying out the program] - your concept admirably demonstrates the fallacy of 'trading height for width' - end of story.
Nevertheless, as I've said all along, build it & see, even get Ralph to build as well to be doubly sure, but look at things with a critical eye - your lifted superior weights are redundant i.e. not required vis-a-vis add nothing to the design - you would do just as well to have weights located at the folding pivots only - the school of hard knocks is the best teacher for sure so I can't fault you for skinning your knuckles.
You are right, just build the thing and see what happens, the more talking I do, the less testing I do...
lol I do know one thing, trying to get perpetual motion is not easy haha you have to laugh though...
Fletcher,
As usual you and I agree or this time I should say I agree with you.
Quote from: fletcher on May 15, 2008, 08:15:16 PM
Alex .. I suggest you take a deep breath - expect the same outcome that you laughed about with Hans WM sim attempt [he's obviously trying out the program] - your concept admirably demonstrates the fallacy of 'trading height for width' - end of story.
So why am I overly interested? Its because when Alex first passed this by me, I saw the fault and brought it to his attention. I also say what I believe is potential for negating the hight for width scenario that seems to pop up in almost every design we see.
I cannot go into depth as it is not mine and in my eyes considered confidential prior property rights. Alex can post all he wishes but I am still bound to only that which has been stated or he gives me authorization to proceed.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander, I do expect Alex to keep my responses to him confidential.
Ralph
Yes, there is a problem in the drawings which only Ralph caught on which impressed me, shows you his experience ;D
that?s why I have not shown the wheel I have built, but I will do, but not yet...
As to what Ralph says about keeping what he says to me confidential, there is no problem there, he has offered to help me, and I accept his help and respect his opions and also any concerns he might have...
In the meanwhile, we keep learning and learning.
To keep a wheel turning, we have a lot of learning,
Through principle of excess weight, free energy, we are earning. ;)
Thanks for an interesting thread, but the whole 'I know something cool but I'm not tellin' seems to be a reoccurring theme on this board and is really growing old. Why put 80% of a design out there, try and rally support from the community, and then announce that you're holding back the secret sauce while people who are eager to help replicate your design waste their time 're-inventing the wheel' so-to-speak.
I'm confuzzled by this trend... ???
Perma
Quote from: perma on May 15, 2008, 09:24:49 PM
Thanks for an interesting thread, but the whole 'I know something cool but I'm not tellin' seems to be a reoccurring theme on this board and is really growing old. Why put 80% of a design out there, try and rally support from the community, and then announce that you're holding back the secret sauce while people who are eager to help replicate your design waste their time 're-inventing the wheel' so-to-speak.
I'm confuzzled by this trend... ???
Perma
I can understand what you mean, thats why im just gonna post the idea, i give up lol, i really do
Ralph shall we just post the thing and we can all work on it, hes right really, I have asked for help, they gave some and now its time to show them the tiny difference about the wheel, and trust me, its small... so Ralph, shall we?
p.s ill wait for Ralph
Why do you wait for Ralph ?
Did he help you to get there ?
Alex has been corresponding with Ralph and myself for quite awhile. Either Ralph or myself would check out his ideas and give him answers, the whys and why nots. Even if they where bad we would hold no punches. I feel it is a respect thing.
[Ralph shall we just post the thing and we can all work on it, hes right really, I have asked for help, they gave some and now its time to show them the tiny difference about the wheel, and trust me, its small... so Ralph, shall we?]
Its your wheel your design, I only reviewed it and made comment at your request. By all rights it is yours to do as you please. I currently have no prior claim to any part of it. You may with my blessing remove the word "we" from your above quote.
Now if and when I build it, augment and change as I see fit then it will be a different story. I will claim recognition and royalty's based on the percentage of change to the design.
To save face and reputation let it go! You have carried to the point that you have already let the fox in the hen house. You have already showed them what you sent me. The discretion is yours, all I can say is that if it were mine and I enticed them as you have, my integrity would say let them have it.
Remember my old signature "Its nice to have a full deck to draw from as you may not be standing with a pat hand"
Ralph
G'day all,
The simulation I published was not intended as a serious effort to create a wheel. All I wanted to show is that WM2D is not what it is cracked up to be, as the simulation does not behave as a wheel of similar construction would behave if built.
I have changed the pins as Stefan suggested but it still behaves irrationally. I would say that as a serious tool this programme leaves a lot to be desired.
Hans von Lieven
@Ralph,
The example of the wheel I put up is not apropos the thread. What is, is the fact that WM2D is being used to evaluate Alex's ideas. I posted the simulation and my comments purely to show not to put too much stock in this simulation programme, as probably some simulations will tell you it won't work when it does, and some it will work when it's a dud.
Just be careful.
When it is all said and done, there is no substitute for building.
Hans von Lieven
Hi Hans,
your simulation behaves quite natural.
This will just spin up a bit to one side, will come to a stop
and reverses again,so it is spinning a bit back and forth, until it
comes to a stop.
I am still a Newbie with WM2D and still try to learn it,
but it is a very powerful program and pretty reliable.
No, Stefan it does not behave naturally.
After the simulation comes to a standstill there is massive acceleration on the return. That is NOT natural behaviour if the wheel itself is in a balanced state to start with.
If you give a balanced wheel a push, it will come to a standstill. It will not reverse direction like a pendulum.
There is something decidedly odd here. It would seem to me from my other simulations that the more kinetic components there are in the system the more unreliable the programme becomes.
Hans von Lieven
Hi Hans - I concur - I wrote this reply on a thread [BW.com] this morning about a 'runner' that didn't appear to be behaving as you might expect- btw Rainer professionally supports the product in industry.
edited for brevity ... Hi .. interesting design concept for sure - Rainer dropped in last night - he is having great difficulty accessing the board at the moment hence I'm posting on his behalf this morning after he rang me - I showed him your sim & got him to take a look at it as it seems a little peculiar to us - we tried a few things to test its integrity & got some interesting results.
If you anchor the pendulum bob to the background the system locks up & keels [this you would expect] - if you lock it down with a rod attached to the background the sim accelerates away as usual [this shouldn't happen] - Rainer went into the accuracy settings & increased the accuracy & it was still a runner, ... so he went deeper - he changed the way it calculates to Euler [a different calculation method from Kutta] & it keeled, regardless of accuracy settings i.e. number of frames per second - he then changed it back to the Kutta-Merson method of calculating [its original setting] & it keels this time.
His thoughts are that the problem lies in the way the gear forces are calculating thru - since the program is iterative then it's a discreet process, frame by frame - he thinks the forces calculating on the gears are out of sinc [so to speak] with the frames calculating [steps per min] - this would result [he thinks] in a fictitious force or torque on the gears thus turning the sim - apparently the Euler calculating method is another way for sims to do their totaling - he is suspicious of your initial 'runner' in that it keels in both methods after it is changed to Euler & then back again ???
He asked me to say that using WM as a tool is fine but it shouldn't be entirely trusted or relied upon [especially in this field] - he gave the analogy of would he trust to go flying with a brand new helicopter pilot - maybe, & maybe everything would be ok - he would have a lot more trust that things would go well with a pilot of 20 years experience.
We are not trying to rain on your parade [only give our opinions of the sims integrity & reliability] but suggest that you don't always trust the sim results - you are building the REAL DEAL so that should prove your principle beyond a doubt & we both wish you well with that.
Other things to look out for is use of polygons - the program can sometimes get confused & use the inside surface for reaction force calculations - try not to use the polygon tool.
Overlap error to big - the program misses a step in calculating giving erroneous results - reduce the iteration steps & watch for overlap tolerances.
Placement of pins etc not accurate enough - restraints break N.B. if you get a "restraint warning" do not trust the program after that point - means the program has left out some calculations it can not resolve - usually due to builder error.
Other ones that Rainer knows about - if you know what to look out for.
All in all, in the right hands, it is an excellent, accurate & reliable tool to assist analysis or design & planning of a build, but should not be taken as gospel - doesn't replace common sense & a good eye for detail & observation.
Thanks Fletcher, your comments are helpful.
Hans
Hans,
Sorry that I misinterpreted the full reasoning for your simulation.
[When it is all said and done, there is no substitute for building.]
All I will say is that I agree and that I do not believe a simulation of Alex's design would prove fruitful.
Ralph
Hans .. may I suggest you delete your extra weight ball to get your sim rotating [so its not in the system] - then use the torque tool to add some rotational element [place it anywhere on the mech - give it a positive or negative value which dictates the direction the torque will occur - use say 100 Netwons or less - try making it active for say 2 seconds only [see graphic] - then, if the center of the sim is coloured select the coloured parts & go to window>appearance>patterns & select NO [this will make the parts transparent - then select view>system center of mass [CoM] - then run your sim.
Now you will see the entire systems CoM as it oscillates beneath & to the side of the Center of Rotation - this will show why it accelerates IMO.
Can't seem to edit the above post - here's a closeup pic of the CoM - it should travel from side to side, swinging beneath the axle as the oscillations dampen down [assumng there is some air resistance [quick & dirty friction added] or pin friction etc.
Perpetual Motion Wheel Mechanism
as the two long wooden poles move up every time a weight drops, the poles have to slightly shift from right to left as one part of the lever (top left of wheel) makes a circular motion...
http://i26.tinypic.com/1y8kzs.jpg
There is alot of force in this wheel as the top and bottom weights fall it puts alot of enrergy out into lifting the weights poles, therefore a lighter weight may I lift a heavier weight, unless I have calculated this wrongly which is possilbe, I have lifted 2 pences with 1 pences using this though and I slighty raise an 8 ounce with a 4 ounce but it was hardly lifted at all
Thanks Alexioco! You really will help out the community alot by sharing and the community will help you back.
I also want to give my opinion of sketchup+sketchyphysics;
The idea is really good, but the plugin is in it's infancy stage and it really shows. It's quite buggy and unintuitive but it has a lot of potentional in the future. I am going to make video of what I made with it...it won't be anything good due to the unstableness, really to bad. What is also a huge turn off is the fact it doesn't (yet) support material properties like setting friction, mass, elasicity to certain bodies. Currently everything seems to have the same mass big or small.
Anyways thanks again for your wheel alex, I might just try to build this with real materials :o.
Quote from: broli on May 16, 2008, 07:53:58 AM
Thanks Alexioco! You really will help out the community alot by sharing and the community will help you back.
I also want to give my opinion of sketchup+sketchyphysics;
The idea is really good, but the plugin is in it's infancy stage and it really shows. It's quite buggy and unintuitive but it has a lot of potentional in the future. I am going to make video of what I made with it...it won't be anything good due to the unstableness, really to bad. What is also a huge turn off is the fact it doesn't (yet) support material properties like setting friction, mass, elasicity to certain bodies. Currently everything seems to have the same mass big or small.
Anyways thanks again for your wheel alex, I might just try to build this with real materials :o.
Yeah, Im willing to help you all and each other, lets crack this wheel 8)
as you can see, I need to add a rim and the other side of the wheel, then an axel needs placing either side of the wheel or, you could have a thick hallow axel with holes through it big enough so the poles can shift.
With making this wheel I have learned that the levers have to be attached in a certain way (like in my pic) they have to be attached right under the other lever if you see what I mean, that way the poles can shoot up earlier, I am nearly sure that the poles can have more heavy weight on, not much more heavy though and also the lifting weights which fall could be placed further down the lever closer to the axel to give the out weights more chance of being the prime mover...
@Stefan;
instead of using sliders, why not hack your own in it like this...
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi187.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fx12%2Fbroli123%2FwheelBarings.jpg&hash=e3035ea0fcbdd96d32c18e62438f78935daecf1f)
Okay Alex,
many thanks for posting this.
You showed the wheel in its neutral position,
where all 4 parts are equally placed.
Good idea to begin the modelling in WM2D this way,
then the rods(bars) can go out each on its own.
Will try it later when I have taken a small rest.
Regards, Stefan.
If sketchyphysics does not work out,
maybe have a look at Newton3
http://www.simsoft.ch/newton/index.php
download at:
http://www.z-online.ch/WebBuild/head_fs.asp?KundenID=Simsoft&S=1&PageNr=9
here are a few video tutorials:
http://www.dsmm.net/English/newton/video_tutorials.php
At first site it doesn't seem to be free, and I really don't feel like learning a whole new package. Currently I'm again rebuilding the wheel with better planning. It seems like the more I try the more clean it gets.
Alex I just noticed in your last photo that the small weights that push the big rods up are gone?
I took them off, also the weights arn't needed to lift the rods :p if the intire mechanism was heavy, the wheel would run without rods lol
Quote from: broli on May 16, 2008, 11:23:49 AM
Alex I just noticed in your last photo that the small weights that push the big rods up are gone?
I took them off, also, you dont need any weights for the rods to lift, the mechanism can do it on its own, its funny because if the mechanism was heavy enough, the wheel would run without weights :p
When I think about my wheel I can think of little problems I may have but over all I think it will work, but it will be weak as its output will be one weight strong I think, for me this does not matter as I only want one to entertain myself, if a large wheel was built and the weights were really heavy then it would be a strong wheel, I think that the wheel will be as strong as the weight of one of the weights you use in the wheel meaning there is a small output with less input. Suppose this wheel does not work and we exhaust in different ways, then I will be leaving for a while to understand his MT's, and I mean all of them, and try to combined all of his important wheels, or the ones he points at, but at the moment, Im sure I have combined the correct wheels as it is, im disappointed though as MT 27 is no in my wheel and that is a very very important wheel, unless it is in my design and I have not noticed it, anyway this wheel needs finishing and I?m becoming impatient about these weights, I attempted to make some but fails as its not practical, the weights I need are to be cylindrical with a hole running through them so the rods can be inserted into the weights...
This wheel will look impressive when its done, I just hope it does something impressive too.
I also need a wheel rim, so I can attach the other wheel on with a hinge then have some equal spaced pegs to keep the other wheel on, then put an axel each side and let the thing go.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 16, 2008, 09:59:55 AM
If sketchyphysics does not work out,
maybe have a look at Newton3
http://www.simsoft.ch/newton/index.php
download at:
http://www.z-online.ch/WebBuild/head_fs.asp?KundenID=Simsoft&S=1&PageNr=9
here are a few video tutorials:
http://www.dsmm.net/English/newton/video_tutorials.php
Good one Stefan.
This programme is a lot different to what we are used to. It is a virtual Meccano set in essence. You can choose from a number of parts like pulleys, gears, levers, shafts and so forth, already rendered in 3D and assemble them as you would with Meccano parts. You can also make up your own parts.
In other words you are actually building a virtual machine much as you would in a real workshop.Unfortunately it is expensive $140.00 US plus shipping was the cheapest I have seen so far.
Some examples:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.designwareinc.com%2Fimg%2Fnewton%2Fnewt3.gif&hash=3ad2ea1e283473768f878dc0fc403259ceaf71c2)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.designwareinc.com%2Fimg%2Fnewton%2Fnewt2.gif&hash=1d590af48fe8d9c24d30d3dcde8c841c452af21d)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.designwareinc.com%2Fimg%2Fnewton%2Fnewt1.gif&hash=b4783fd146f1e994dfeca8cdc3eaa2ba560f8f9a)
Hans von Lieven
Oke here's some stuff from my new setup. This is the 3rd build and it's much cleaner and "stable" :p
Video: http://broli.dommel.be/httpdocs/lAlexWheel.avi (http://broli.dommel.be/httpdocs/lAlexWheel.avi) (a bit choppy)
Image:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi187.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fx12%2Fbroli123%2Falexwheel-1.jpg&hash=63c587feb730d0356eeaa421de694d8da7296ea5)
Currently the wheel is pretty much locked, I think this has to do with the fact I can't insert a mass value, I think everything has the same mass now. And like I also noted earlier sketchyphysics is a bit lacky ;D.
Oh yeah here's is a previous attempt, this one just explodes :p.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi187.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fx12%2Fbroli123%2Falexwheel.png&hash=ef54474d24482d90c3c5beaa6d95d0ccd10d0985)
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 15, 2008, 11:20:18 PM
No, Stefan it does not behave naturally.
After the simulation comes to a standstill there is massive acceleration on the return. That is NOT natural behaviour if the wheel itself is in a balanced state to start with.
If you give a balanced wheel a push, it will come to a standstill. It will not reverse direction like a pendulum.
There is something decidedly odd here. It would seem to me from my other simulations that the more kinetic components there are in the system the more unreliable the programme becomes.
Hans von Lieven
If you model an unbalanced system, if you don't model it at the total rest point, will have accumulated energy before you release it. When you activate it, will start to act like a pendulum, why? because the gravity pull things down on the right of the central point of the system, and pull things down on the left side also, and it has to get rid of the accumulated energy due the imbalanced start position. But it depends a lot on the mass of the system and friction of the joints in real life, cause it can release energy there, reducing the pendulum efect.
the link doesnt work ???
should be: http://broli.dommel.be/lAlexWheel.avi
I'm now also looking to convert this to 3ds max where I can use reactor to get it running.
Quote from: broli on May 16, 2008, 04:59:48 PM
should be: http://broli.dommel.be/lAlexWheel.avi
I'm now also looking to convert this to 3ds max where I can use reactor to get it running.
Hi Broli,
many thanks for this animation.
But you did set the frames persecond just to 1 fps and also the weights did not move...
So is this a limitation to sketchyphysics ?
Why do the weights not move ?
Many thanks.
@Stefan;
Yeah it's pretty much a sketchyphysics limit. Since you can't set individual masses, so the wheightst could be 1g as far as it matters. Tommorrow I'll try out 3dsmax ;D.
@Alexioco: Any updates or news from your side?
Animation looked good, shame the weights were not moving, any how, we know how it works now.
Tomorrow I hope to get the rim for my wheel then attach the other wheel to make it a complete wheel, then all is left to get are the weights, and that will be the moment of truth, I would like to test different weights with my wheel but that wont be happening in a while so I will only be able to make a limited test, but it should bring forth some interesting results...
It?s hard to believe that if this wheel works the simplicity of it is amazing, my excitement will be un controllable.
I?m going to Venice this year, and I want my wheel made before I go so that if my wheel works, I can set my wheel off in my attic and leave it for a week, then come back, go into the attic, and just before I open the door to see if it still going it will be so exciting:p
Hi Alex,
I am going to do now another WM2D test.
Should all weights be the same or should I try different weights
inside the machine ?
Please let me know.
Many thanks.
@Hans,
nice examples.
Do you think,one could simulate the Alex design with Newton ?
What limitation has the demo Version of Newton ?
Many thanks.
Well I believe that a lighter weight will lift a heavier weight which are on the poles, not to much lighter, but it will say 2 ounces lifting 4 ounces should work, try it and see what happens...
Quote from: broli on May 16, 2008, 05:46:50 PM
@Alexioco: Any updates or news from your side?
Well broli there is a new page with photos of a wheel stand that should be easy to build.
There is?
edit: ah got ya
Stefan, could you post the wm2d file of your previous setup please.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 16, 2008, 06:13:44 PM
@Hans,
nice examples.
Do you think,one could simulate the Alex design with Newton ?
What limitation has the demo Version of Newton ?
Many thanks.
@Stefan,
It is unfortunately not a demo version. What they call a demo are just three animations created with the programme. I guess we have to buy the thing to find out. Looks fascinating though.
Hans
I have been thinking, you know when it comes to combinding the MT's, I think its possible that when you combined them you need to do it in order of the wheels, because this is how I got my wheel, it was like a progression of wheels making the main wheel, meaning if I wanted to add MT 27 then its now time to, but I missed MT 19/20 so that would have to be put into my wheel, and you would get this which is improved from the wheel that I have now...
This wheel you see below will be a very strong wheel for lifting the weights, now I need to think how to involve MT 27 and it will be such a strong wheel...
For instance you can combined MT 25 and 27 to get this result
then place that into the above wheel to make it complete...
These are just ideas on how you can play with the wheels...
By putting all of that together, you might get this wheel below, but I dont think that would work...
For the moment, the wheel I have needs to be tested...
I wish these weights were here, if they were, you would know very soon if the wheel worked or not...
Quote from: broli on May 16, 2008, 06:49:09 PM
Stefan, could you post the wm2d file of your previous setup please.
I will post later a new better one.
Stay tuned.
Regards, Stefan.
I also just noticed wm2d supports dxf files. This means you can make very precise models in some drawing tool, rather than hacking your way in wm2d.
Okay,I did now the new simulation,
but this thing just hangs out and balances out.
Here are 2 pics and in the next message I will post the WM2D file.
I did it now very exactly, so all rods have the same length.
The Center of Mass falls a bit below the axis and then the whole
wheel acts like a pendulum going back and forth...
Maybe I have to change the rods length again.
All blue weights have 10 Kg and the wheel has 20 Kg.
I hope somebody will play also with myWM2D file
and can get it to work.
Regards, Stefan.
Okay, here is now the WM2D file:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=get62
Have fun playing with it.
I will change and optimize now the rod lengths and will see,
if it will turn then...
Sorry Stefan, I don't seem to be able to access it.
Even though I am logged on it shows me on this page as a guest and if I press the login button on this page it puts me back to the starting page and the whole thing starts over.
Error message: you are not allowed to access this section
Hi Hans and all,
I have to recheck the permission.
Otherwise here are now all my latest files:
http://www.overunity.com/alexioco
I just made another movie,
which is also there.
http://www.overunity.com/alexioco/alex_harti02.avi
There you can see, that it is very important,
that the Center of Mass ( CoM) never goes down,
but stays at the same height and is shifted to the right side of the wheel.
Only this way via the shift and not going down, we can achieve the contineous
turn of the wheel.
SoI have to recheck all 4 parts of the wheel
now, how the CoM is behaving and then try to redesign it this way...
Regards, Stefan.
Thanks Stefan ..it keels when all the weights [driver & driven] are the same 10 kg's each - it keels when either the driver or the driven weights are changed to 5 kg's leaving the other 4 at 10 kg's - I suggest it will keel with any combination of weights ratio & rod lengths you care to try.
N.B.1. the rods in WM are massless for the purposes of the simulation - if the rods were replaced by rectangles with even a little mass it would still keel but would find a slightly different 'balanced' position i.e. where no torque is produced - if you can't be bothered adding pin friction to everything I suggest you select .... World>air resistance>low pressure .... as an approximation of some ordinary system losses a real build would encounter [this will slow down & dampen the oscillations].
N.B.2. keeling is an analogy/metaphor for a yachts keel that lowers its CoG, in the process standing the yacht upright at the water line.
I guess its up to you to find a combination that works while Alex & Ralph independently build the thing to cross reference ?!
Okay, here is a picture, of what I mean.
the inner weight is 30 Kg and the outer weight is just 10 Kg.
So via the rod levers you can pull up the 30 Kg weight via the
10Kg weight and the CoM ( Center of Mass) does not go down, but goes to the right side of the wheel,
making it there heavier.
Maybe we still find a solution, so the CoM goes up ?
But I think this will not be found, as when the weights move, their combined
CoM does always go down at least a bit first.
But here in my example movie
alex_harti02.avi
you see, that the CoM goes down and up again
and shifts to the right side.
Well, I am again then now copying the first quarter weights setup to the other
quarters of the wheel and will study the CoM further...
We will see, if we get then the wheel to shift all of its CoM to the right side and thus make
it heavier there, so the wheel could rotate clockwise...
Stay tuned..
Fletcher and forum members;
I guess its up to you to find a combination that works while Alex & Ralph independently build the thing to cross reference ?!
Due to the amount of interest and the number of members all working on this design, I wish to set the record straight.
I am not nor will I soon start building this concept. I will wait until everyone runs their simulations and perchance some real builds are explored.
If you recall, my policy is to build submissions that I deem viable or questionable for those that do not have the resources, tooling or skills to do it themselves. In this case Alex claims he is capable of building it himself. Therefore I decline. I am not in the position to be building wheels for those capable of doing their own.
Alex has publicly given me an OK to build and modify as I see fit, which I did not have when first reviewing his design.
If a runner is not presented and the present excitement and enthusiasm dies, then I may be interested in seeing what my innovation may provide. For now I have other interests, and will watch this thread run its course.
Ralph
EDIT: IMO the simulations displayed here is leading away from the original submitted drawings that I received.
Okay, I uploaded another new movie over here:
http://www.overunity.com/alexioco/alex_harti03.avi
and the simulation file to it:
http://www.overunity.com/alexioco/alex_new17.wm2d
As you can see in the movie the
CoM ( the dotted ball below the axis) moves to the right,
then the wheel turns and then it just keels.
We have to find a way, that the weights will shift again before it keels
again...
But I think, this Alex MT combination can not work this way.
I tried various setups and this was still the best so far.
At least I do know now the WM2D programm much better and
will try now to solve the Milkovic puzzle with it.
Here is a picture for those who have not looked at the movies yet.
You see the CoM ( dotted ball) is below the axis and has shifted to the right
and then the wheel
is behaving like a pendulum
as the weights do not shift anymore inside the wheel
and it just keels.
I guess this only can be overcome if springs will be used, which
are fixed with one end OUTSIDE the wheel and with the other side
to a weight inside the wheel.
But then the syncing of all the spring actions will be very hard to do
purely mechanically...
Regards, Stefan.
I will wait now for Alex to let us know,
if his build will behave differently than my simulations.
I believe it not.
It will also keel and will not run in my opinion.
First we have to find a way, that the CoM will alsways shift to
the right ( for clockwise rotation) and never move down inside the wheel,
even better have to move up.
Well Alex, now it is your turn with your build.
Regards, Stefan.
Greetings Stefan
That avi is just what allot of us who have built wheels have seen all to often. ???
Very nice wheels, shame they didnt work the same way mine does...
There are subtle differences when building wheels, the ones you have built wont work as the poles dont exeed the liftings weights, just leave me to do it now and we will soon see if the wheel runs, if not then im off for a big study...
edit: I just watched it again and in fact im sorry but they work nothing like mine, thanks for your hard work in simulating these wheel though, :) You must of worked hard on them, well done :)
Alex
I looked at the photo again and then looked at the avi. No they are not quite alike, but the effects may be. Of course I hope not, but I see 3 weights in the kill zone before shift, and 2 weights in the upper negative zone above 9:00, and 3 in the positive power zone the descending side. It is not looking good in my eyes. Take the graphs I sent you and over lay on your design Remember that the best power is between 2 and 4 o'clock spinning clockwise. the kill zone is between 5:30 to 9:00 this is due to it's going up hill effect. Some would ask why 5:30 as the start, that is simple, you have lost all power and it is in the shift from positive to negative.
Quote from: AB Hammer on May 17, 2008, 03:59:16 PM
Alex
I looked at the photo again and then looked at the avi. No they are not quite alike, but the effects may be. Of course I hope not, but I see 3 weights in the kill zone before shift, and 2 weights in the upper negative zone above 9:00, and 3 in the positive power zone the descending side. It is not looking good in my eyes. Take the graphs I sent you and over lay on your design Remember that the best power is between 2 and 4 o'clock spinning clockwise. the kill zone is between 5:30 to 9:00 this is due to it's going up hill effect. Some would ask why 5:30 as the start, that is simple, you have lost all power and it is in the shift from positive to negative.
That?s why I hope the weights that extend upwards will help; also, the weights that extend upwards are heavier.
I have learned with any perpetual wheel that there a re always two more weights on the ascending side than there is on the descending side, its always 2 more weights or if its a bad design then maybe more... if this stops my wheel even with the rods having heavier weights then I/we need to find out how to reduce the weights on the ascending side, if you can?t get any less than two then momentum, excess weight is very important and even centrifugal force...
I need to find out why two more weights are always on the ascending side, there as to be a way to beat this which in itself would be perpetual if achieved...
If my wheel does not work then I will have learnt that width cannot be used to achieve height, unless Bessler did it that way in a strange way, you see, really he must of as my wheels come purely from his MT's...
Quote from: Alexioco on May 16, 2008, 07:02:20 PM
By putting all of that together, you might get this wheel below, but I dont think that would work...
For the moment, the wheel I have needs to be tested...
I wish these weights were here, if they were, you would know very soon if the wheel worked or not...
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D4683.0%3Battach%3D23480&hash=4b50010874d8e7af0a73d60e2203a51e1e0a87eb)
Hi Alex,
is this one having ropes inside the wheel,
or why does it have these "lines" from 10 to 12 and 4 to 6 o?clock ?
What would be their effect ?
If it would be fixed at 12 and at 6, why would the lines still go to
10 and 4 ?
Does not make sense to me ???!!!
To move the weight differently than the rods would do ?
Please explain in detail.
Also the lower curved lines, are these also ropes ?
Please explain.
Many thanks.
Hmm,
maybe the missing link, what Bessler did delete in these drawings is,
that the line from 12 to 10 for instance is a rope and from 10 it goes
still to a weight to pull it ?
Maybe Bessler deleted or did not draw the line from
10 to the weight for his security ??
Otherwise these lines make no sense, as the weight is already fixed
via the rod or rope at 12 o?clock ?
Do you agree ?
I will see, what will come out, if we have from 12 to 10 a rope
and from 10 going to the lower weight at 7 o?clock and helping there to pull it up...
We really need to find a solution to never lower the CoM and always shift it to the right for
clockwise rotation.
@ABhammer or @Alex, did you understand the importance of the CoM
shifting ?
If you have any ideas, just post them and I will try them in the simulator.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: Alexioco on May 17, 2008, 03:09:56 PM
edit: I just watched it again and in fact im sorry but they work nothing like mine, thanks for your hard work in simulating these wheel though, :) You must of worked hard on them, well done :)
Just tell me the difference and I will simulate this again.
I have been doing about 50 simulations so far and posted only the best ones...
It does not matter,if you have the weights sitting more up or lower in the wheel,
cause the opposite side would also haveit lower or higher...
It only depends on the CoM.
Have a look again at the dotted ball below the axis in the videos.
Only this matters.
When this ball falls, the CoM shifts down and it will just keel
like a pendulum.
We always need to keep the CoM at the same height and shift it just to one
side or raise it, but I guess this is not possible...
In all my simulations, I never saw it rising !
Alex,did you try your wheel already by taping a few pennis as weights to your rods ?
Just do these basic tests and show us a video about it.
Many thanks.
Im not sure what you are talking about about com...
I just did a test with pennies and marbles together as one weight, I found that the axel of my wheel is not dead centre, somtimes the wheel moved as the axel came slightly higher, other times the wheel stopped, even with 4 weights on the right sticking out and 4 on the left facing in, so my axel cant be dead centre or eles the thing should of moved at least abit, it did only when the wheel could according to the axel...
Hi Alex,
if you did not understand my explanation of the
Center of Mass
also called
Center of Gravity
of the wheel, please try to reread it and watch again my
simulation movies.
The small dotted black and white ball below the axis is the
displayed
Center of Mass
of the wheel and the weights together.
If it will move below the axis,
the center of gravity of the whole wheel will move down
and the wheel will just keel and only behave like a pendulum.
If you don?t understand this, just first study it.
It is the basic theory operation of all gravity wheels...
Yep that's pretty much what perpetual motion is all about. Offsetting the CoM and KEEPING it there.
Also as stefan I'm wondering about the purpose of that extra, seemingly meaningless, rod.
that other wheel you asked about is just what it would look like if the other MT's were combined, and there is no string in any of the wheels
I now understand a little bit better about cog/com I prefer cog, anyway if the poles rise up at 12 then the wheel should be able to keep its motion... mine at the moment raise up at about 1, but I know how to make the poles rise up even before 12 or at 12, like this...
(bottom left hand wheel)
Ok new update for you all, I just combined MT 20 into my wheel (P Motion made a topic on it which got me thinking so I thank him for his post) anyway I placed my wheel drawing next to MT 20 and managed to fit it in, my wheel now has a pulley system, but before I go to far in front of myself, I still have to test the wheel I started building...
Here is the wheel anyway
Under the breath chuckle.
The drawing to the write, the A is 30% longer than the C.
Hay Alex If I send you an avi would you promise not to show, send or post it to anybody else? It is a part of an ongoing research. It will also show you how fast your wheel should be spinning and shifting in that amount of time, you will see where some problems may arise.
hartiberlin
I will send it to you as well out of respect of your forum. But please don't post it of yet, it is just a test.
Okay ABHammer, promised.
Could I do a simulation of it and post the simuation movie ?
hartiberlin
I need to be able to send it email. Can you send me an email to artisanshammer@yahoo.com so I can return email.
edit oops I forgot the s
Quote from: AB Hammer on May 17, 2008, 10:31:33 PM
hartiberlin
I need to be able to send it email. Can you send me an email to artisanhammer@yahoo.com so I can return email.
Sounds great, ok I will keep my word, ps, what do you think of the latest idea?
wow I have just combined MT 18 into it too, its getting better, my wheel now has springs
Alex
avi sent
hartiberlin
I screwed up my email address it is artisanshammer@yahoo.com
this new yahoo message thing has come uo and I dont lke it, I cant find the file...
It's in the second one.
it is the one that starts as OOPS I forgot the avi
due to its size it may take a little while.
Strange, I cannot see the file anywhere on the messages you send me, they are usaly at the bottom
Hi Harti and everybody,
I agree to Harti's thoughts about the manipulation of the centre of mass (centre of graity)
I also want to draw your attention to several points:
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 13, 2008, 10:23:36 AM
....
When a weight has gone down in the gravity field without being attached to a spring,
its potential energy has been converted totally to kinetic energy and its energy has been "lost".
....
Harti, in the quoted text you say, the potential energy has been converted.
I agree.
In the next half sentence you suddenly say the energy is lost.
How can it be lost, when you said it was converted? It is still there as kinetic energy ( = speed).
It must now be converted back to potential energy.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 13, 2008, 10:23:36 AM
....
But again I miss my own principle, how I understand a gravity wheel
can only work is that there are no springs which store the movement
( that means store the potential energy) of the weights.
....
I understand that you want to use springs more or less as storage batteries for the potential energy.
But I think you don't need them. Please try to see the whole wheel as a battery, which stores the energy as speed (= angular momentum, kinetic energy). The amount of stored energy will accumulate (= get bigger and bigger), as more gravitational force impacts the wheel over time.
The wheel will speed up (= run away).
Bessler needed the external pendulums to restrict the speeding up.
I think Alexioco is very close in his latest diagrams, especially the one I attached here.
Please also compare this to my drawing here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4514.msg96275.html#msg96275
Maybe you can simulate this latest simple mechanism by Alexioco, Harti !?
PS I think there will be several embodiments which will work, as long as the shifted weights B and D are shifted
directly through the central hub of the wheel as in Alexioco's drawing, to avoid keeling.
I did now a few more new simulations and all have the problem,
that the CoG ( Center of Gravity) of the wheel
shifts just down and then the wheel
just keels.
Also the same with using springs.
Also these drawings Alex and Gustav put up from the MT combination are pretty
flawed, cause the folding rods in the lower part are longer than in the upper part of the wheel,
so it does not work like this...
It can not fold together like this.
These drawings are overexagerated, so to say..
So I think, the only way to get a perpetual wheel
is using the centrifugal forces somehow.
Just the weight forces alone do not work.
One must convert the centrifugal and centripetal forces somehow
to unidirectional forces and use these to lift the weights up again.
Remember Bessler?s wheel was said to have made a lot of noise,
so the weights must have been pretty fast inside the machine,
so he probably also used centrifugal forces.
Just moving weight forces alone would not have made such a noise.
I will post this evening a few of my simulations, so you can see, how they
all keel out.
Regards, Stefan.
Ok then
Besslers wheel was said to have 8 hits per round and scratching sounds like wood rubbing together.
CF is the enemy it has caused more wheel designs not to work or if they even could, they would not work very well due to the CF effect. You have to overcome CF effects and still make it heavier on the descending side and keep the shifting that way.
I wander how the answer is so simple yet we cannot get it...
I think I have found a first solution !
Remember it was said as ABHammer also repeated that there were scratching sounds.
In my view this can only be done by ramps.
Here I have come up with a 2 weight and pulley system and a ramp.
Very simple indeed !
The green weight has 40 Kgs.
The blue weight has 20 Kgs.
As the green weight is on the ramp,
it is getting much lighter and climbs the ramp
to the top and leaves it and falls down, as he green weight is double the weight of the blue weight.
This could be incorporated into a wheel to lift heavier weights with lighter weights.
If you make both weights the same weight and let the blue weight also rise on a ramp
you can make a kind of see-saw effect.
So Bessler probably used pendulum weights and did put them on tilted ramps to move them up
and then let them fall again propelling the wheel.
I will further work on this and present some animations, when I have got a bit sleep for now..
Regards, Stefan.
Well about the scratching noises, I think it comes from poles sliding over eachother just like in MT14/15 thats a good idea...
IMHO I think that its best to stay with just the MT's and work on them from there...
Sorry Stefan,
Nice thought but there is no extra energy here. The vertical height traveled by the heavier weight is exactly half the vertical height traveled by the lighter weight if we leave things like friction out for the moment. (In fact it is a little less otherwise we would have equilibrium.) You need ALL of that energy to bring the lighter weight back to the starting position. It acts similar to a lever.
Hans von Lieven
I was thinking about the wheights that are dropping. When they drop they pretty much transfer their kinetic energy on to the rods or just back on the wheel giving it a "push" in the oppesite direction of motion. I was wondering if we couldn't flip this "push" so that it somehow "pushes" in the same direction as the wheel is spinning in. This is a wild idea but can't we stick a gear in there somewhere hooked to one of this weights, when it drops it turns the gear which is then connected to the axel and thus contributes to the main motion being clockwise in this case.
Hi harti and all
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 18, 2008, 08:15:14 AM
...
I will post this evening a few of my simulations, so you can see, how they
all keel out.
Regards, Stefan.
I guess you did not do that, Harti.
By the way: How would you identify a self-runner in your simulation program?
Would you be able to recognize it?
Regarding 'keeling':
For a clockwise running wheel, the center of mass or of gravity is allowed to move in qadrant I and quadrant II (see attached drawing).
As long as the COM remains in these two quadrants there would be clockwise torque (which is good).
That is to say, that the
COM is allowed to move into the lower half of the wheel, as long as it stays in the right half.
How must the COM move back up again?
It has to be moved up on the blue line (vertical middle line). In this way it will not create anti-clockwise torque and the wheel will keep moving along as it should.
Hi Gustav,
sorry, yes, I did not post it yes, cause I first have to export still the movies
and convert them.
Well, also I am stillworking on the ramp design and stillhave first to
try a few other things out with this.
I just made the ads ready now for the Dieter Merfurt Osmosis Water motor which
you can see at the left border.
It is also a working gravity motor, as there are weights shifted via the Osmosis effect.
For 10 US$ it is a nice kit and an excellent toy and present
for your kids...
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: Gustav22 on May 19, 2008, 12:18:40 AM
By the way: How would you identify a self-runner in your simulation program?
Would you be able to recognize it?
Ectoplasm, the smell of ozone, a burnt-out cpu, and a splitting headache, (Pi).
Alternatively, instant transport across the galaxy via "infinite improbability drive" ( Hitchiker's Guide).
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cyberpunkreview.com%2Fimages%2FPi06.jpg&hash=844d3981f6ff09695dceed8fe2e1794c4bd66ae2)
Seriously, though, it would be apparent -- the model should continuously accelerate in place, with no friction and no outside forces other than gravity.
Hi All,
do you still say,
when you have seen this movie:
http://overunity.com/alexioco/harti_bessler03.avi
that a ramp has no usefull
effect ?
The green weight is 40 Kg and the Blue
weight is 20 Kg...
More to come...
Regards, Stefan.
Okay, here is now the promised
Alex_MT wheel simulation:
http://overunity.com/alexioco/alex_new25.avi
http://overunity.com/alexioco/alex_new25.wm2d
You see, that it keels again.
Okay, have to work now on a few household things.
Will continue with my ramp design probably
in 2 days or so..
Here is the ramp
simulation for those with WM2D to try themself:
http://overunity.com/alexioco/bessler03.wm2d
P.S: I saw, that I did not yet post a picture of the alex_new25.avi movie.
So here it is for those,who want not to download the movie.
Well, it is basically the MT24
design.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbesslerwheel.com%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2Fa%2Fa3%2FMt_024.gif&hash=82877192a7858555625021ce177fc5cbc0c3356d)
But as you can see, the graphics is overexaggerated, as it can not fold this way...
Hmm,
I also played with different rod lengths in this MT24 design and maybe I did not yet get the right
rod lengths combinations ?
But I tried several different combinations and all wheels just keeled...
I am still waiting to see some positive results from Alex.
Otherwise just get the Water Motor from Dieter Marfurt and scale it up.
It just works very nicely...
Look at the left border ad.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 19, 2008, 01:19:59 AM
Hi All,
do you still say,
when you have seen this movie:
http://overunity.com/alexioco/harti_bessler03.avi
that a ramp has no usefull
effect ?
The green weight is 40 Kg and the Blue
weight is 20 Kg...More to come...Regards, Stefan.
Your simulation has useful effect! It says that either WM2D cannot be trusted or your input is with fault.
Using the graphic engineer format in the background as reference I see the following discrepancies.
A... The blue weight does not fall true vertical but rather in a very slight "S" shape??
B... The ramp is less than 45 degrees, thus the blue weight is falling more than twice the distance to achieve half the elevated distance of the green weight.
C... Once the green weight is clear of the ramp it will pull the blue up and into the pulley and become what is called in the rigging and crane operating world as "tube-locked". There will be no rebound (yo-yo) as shown, I would guess your collision and or elasticity factors need adjusting. Either that or you are using a bungee cord for a rope.
D... On the second simulated rise of the blue weight it shows an acceleration increase creating an "Evert" loop-the- loop effect; http://www.evert.de/eft416e.htm yet there is no physical reason for the weight to react in such manner. The gradient of what is falling and what is raising will keep the rope tight.In real life their would be no second cycle of the blue or green weight without the use of tension springs or bungee rope.
Overview; Green weight falls off end of less than 45 degree ramp blue ball having traveled over twice the distance and has gained approximately four times the inertial energy. This is now quickly dampened by the gravitational pull of the heavier green weight which begins to fall at a 1:1 ratio pulling up blue weight. Having twice the weight and the same distance to fall it will increase in kinetic energy (not velocity) four times that of the blue weight. Attaching hardware (rigging) of blue weight becomes jammed in the pulley.(tube-locked)... The scenario comes to an abrupt end providing rope or cable does not snap or tear out your pulley supports.
As to how you intend to reset this cycle remains to be explored!
I am also apprehensive and question if the green weight resting its mass on an inclined plane will not simply roll down hill raising the lighter blue weight providing resistance is ignored. A 40 K gs weight sitting on an inclined plane still represents 40 K gs of gravitational potential. The ramp only increases the time line of that potential to descend.
Disclosure: This is my opinion and should be evaluated as such. Feel free to debate, refute or correct any misleading statements. Hopefully you can prove me wrong and change my biased opinion of WM2D
Ralph
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 19, 2008, 01:46:03 AM
Okay, here is now the promised
Alex_MT wheel simulation:
http://overunity.com/alexioco/alex_new25.avi
http://overunity.com/alexioco/alex_new25.wm2d
You see, that it keels again.
Stefan,
Your new25avi is doing exactly as I envisioned it doing. I do not think there is any simulation problems here.
This is not the answer and as I previously stated: as the two related threads expand, simulations and input to the original concept was being lead astray, a path with very little of the original idea that he presented to me is being expounded on here, even less in your simulations.
You cannot elude the fact that Alex has changed designs a number of times, throwing in more MT drawings, only confusing the matter. To me it is subjective proof that he
currently does not have a runner. I am not the least dismayed, as I told him approximately May 9th what, IMO was wrong. He responded in a kudos manner, stating that I was right and I was the only one to recognize it. problem is neither of us have sit down and discussed the problem. I do not believe Alex really understood my comment and its relevance.
I am now awaiting acknowledgment from him. I live by a solemn oath not to reveal contents of confidential e-mail unless authorized by the submitter. Alex has left me in a very precarious position by first asking me for my opinion, requesting confidentiality and then creating two threads on this forum.
As one of my peers and member of the Milkovic team put it: "Its like trying to explain a color to a blind man"
Ralph
Quote from: rlortie on May 19, 2008, 04:28:57 AM
Overview; Green weight falls off end of less than 45 degree ramp blue ball having traveled over twice the distance and has gained approximately four times the inertial energy. This is now quickly dampened by the gravitational pull of the heavier green weight which begins to fall at a 1:1 ratio pulling up blue weight. Having twice the weight and the same distance to fall it will increase in kinetic energy (not velocity) four times that of the blue weight.
Well, yes, I wanted only to show,that you can
lift a double as heavy weight via the ramp with a weight only half as much.
I am still pondering about, how I can use this lifting effect efficiently in a wheel
design.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: rlortie on May 19, 2008, 05:40:56 AM
Stefan,
Your new25avi is doing exactly as I envisioned it doing. I do not think there is any simulation problems here.
This is not the answer and as I previously stated: as the two related threads expand, simulations and input to the original concept was being lead astray, a path with very little of the original idea that he presented to me is being expounded on here, even less in your simulations.
You cannot elude the fact that Alex has changed designs a number of times, throwing in more MT drawings, only confusing the matter. To me it is subjective proof that he currently does not have a runner. I am not the least dismayed, as I told him approximately May 9th what, IMO was wrong. He responded in a kudos manner, stating that I was right and I was the only one to recognize it. problem is neither of us have sit down and discussed the problem. I do not believe Alex really understood my comment and its relevance.
I am now awaiting acknowledgment from him. I live by a solemn oath not to reveal contents of confidential e-mail unless authorized by the submitter. Alex has left me in a very precarious position by first asking me for my opinion, requesting confidentiality and then creating two threads on this forum.
As one of my peers and member of the Milkovic team put it: "Its like trying to explain a color to a blind man"
Ralph
Hi Ralph,
yes, I think,
the MT24 and MT25 have no success.
It all keels down and balances out.
These wheels are just too symmetrical.
We need an asymmetrical disturbance every rotation to keep
it going.... but how... ???
Nice animations Stefan, keep up the good work.
The rim on my wheel has been attached now, just waiting for my weights, then ill install the weights attach the other side of the wheel to the rim then let the wheel go ;D
Hey should I film the very first test I do, the very first time I put the wheel onto its axel?
Stefan,
Hi Ralph,
yes, I think,
the MT24 and MT25 have no success.
It all keels down and balances out.
These wheels are just too symmetrical.
We need an asymmetrical disturbance every rotation to keep
it going.... but how... Huh
A few years ago I set up a "skunk works" research shop/s for O-U. As part of this program I drafted "Charter guidelines" that must be adhered to. My first was to build and maintain without question the integrity and reputation to gain the trust of those, lacking resources, skills, and tooling to test their own ideas.
Not unlike a Priest or Doctor, I am oath bound not to divulge communication of private submissions. Individuals recognized as experts by New Energy Congress and others of Sterling Allen's influenced infrastructure such as FE news, ZPEnergy and related O-U based forums have in one way or another came in contact with me, most by referrals.
Why do I bring this to your attention? I do so to explain to you why, when you ask: We need an asymmetrical disturbance every rotation to keep it going.... but how?
I cannot respond with my opinion without acknowledgment from Alex. Also there is the matter of my own self-preservation, I believe in open resource research, but I do not fully intend to simply give away the answer for a cost effective sustaining device. I have to many years of labor, and an exorbitant amount of financial outlay for tooling, shop, shop overhead, materials, taxes, utilities, and related expenses that I would like some day to capture a moderate return for.
I can tell you, as it is not considered confidential, remove MT 24 from your simulation program and throw it away as far as you can. It is not a requirement for this design approach and is in fact detrimental.
Private correspondence received from Alex opened this morning and my oath, once again has me "tube-locked" regarding this matter.
Ralph
Just look at that isn?t that loyally................
Well Ralph, I know that you can go to any forum and you won?t break your promise, thanks.
I have not met anyone like you before on the computer and I?m sure that allot of people on this forum are loyal too...
Anyway, this new wheel (which is an improved one from what we all see (BDW)) will be spoke about on a new topic soon, which will not be disappointing, but for the time being, lets keep our hopes up for the wheel I posted, the rim is attached, I need to attach the other wheel on via hinge, then keep it steady with pegs, any ideas on how I can do this?
Ralph thanks for the advice you're meant to give as I'm meant to make this post. But you speak contradicting words. You believe in open source but at the same time want financial backing. That in my book is called greedyness, and no I don't care what you have done so far. My only intention is to give a free energy device to the world, and I would care less if it doesn't bring me a dime since, that's the only thing that will always stop me and forget the goal. So far I'm very greatfull for alex's openness this will prove us that open sourceness is far from being giving your ideas for free just so you can get ripped off. The only people that think that are the only people have and will earn nothing.
I agree, money does not bring happiness...
I have to ask this.
When you get old, how are you going to pay your bills? (including medical) Or like so many inventors and artist who die penniless.
Or would you like have a word on how to spend the money, like to help people by making good jobs available, as well as the economy by reinvesting. And having a retirement so you don't have to worry how you will survive when you are old and crippled. For once open sourced you will have lost control on how money is earned and spent. I will tell you like it is. I myself am self employed and I would like a retirement. But lets look at it in a different way. Building generators all over the world so all can have electricity at a minimum cost. It still cost to build and most people can't do it without help.
Broli,
But you speak contradicting words.You believe in open source but at the same time want financial backing. That in my book is called greedyness, and no I don't care what you have done so far.
You are not reading my post correctly, the only contradiction is in your own statement. Let me clarify; Open source researching is one thing, sharing knowledge of mistakes and "almost runners"... Seeking financial backing before presenting a feasible cost effective runner I consider scamming.
At no time have I ever solicited for or received one thin dime for my efforts. In fact I do not solicit for member submissions, I am only here and let it be known that I am here to help those incapable of running their own idea through the research mill. I buy the material and pay all overhead on my shop and resources.
To reiterate so that it is perfectly clear I do not, nor have I ever seeked financial backing. To suggest that I have or do is untrue. The closest ever received was when a couple of members were considerate enough to purchase required materials and pay the freight to have it sent to me. They were backing themselves not me.
Another member you know as AB hammer sent me a small desk top model of one of his designs, That is the only form of a gift or contribution I have ever received.
Ralph
Hi Ralph,
I understand that you have invested a lot of money and work over the years,
when I look at your pictures, what you have already all built.
But,
what will you do,
if you will have a running wheel ?
You can?t patent it,
cause they don?t take P.M. machines at the patent office.
The only thing is let them be build and sell them.
Anyway, the market for this is almost endless.
Everybody could make a fortune also with
competition, as every wheel could be built
to specific needs of the customer or
artistic beautyship integrated into...
So if you have some rich customers who want a good looking
wheel, they will happily pay for it...
It is like the car tuning business, there are always "rich jerks"
who want to "burn wheels " ;) LoL !
;) ;D
Quote from: AB Hammer on May 19, 2008, 05:39:20 PM
I have to ask this.
When you get old, how are you going to pay your bills? (including medical) Or like so many inventors and artist who die penniless.
Well, just do it as the author of the Water Motor
( see left border ad)
and sell it as a downloadable EBook or
DOC or PDF file via Shareit.com
If something works like this, there will
always be buyers there who like to try it ,
if they get a nice manual how to set it all up
as it is nicely done in the case of the Water Motor.
It is a real nice toy which works and can be scaled up.
Regards, Stefan.
Money is important, but it doesnt bring real happiness...
I enjoy making my wheel more than I would selling it, as I say, we need to use money for what we need and thats it.
Good morning Stefan
Yes I have a considerable financial investment in my shop and tools. It has been envied by a number of professional Machinists. Engine lathe, Bench mill, 20" swing floor mount drill press, floor mount spindle shaper, stick and Mig welders, accessory's and hand tools to numerous to list . The carpenter shop contains two built in 10" radial arm saws capable of handling material up to 25 feet in length. 10" professional grade table saw, 6" jointer, 24" power feed drum sander, 6 X 48" disk and belt sander, 9" swing wood lathe with 52" bed and all the hand and power tools one could ever want.
I built this inventory over a period of years while gainfully employed with the idea of having it all paid for by retirement age. Side jobs and doing custom work has helped absorb some of the the initial investment. I fabricate and machine everything from wooden antique body parts to the replacement of airplane parts for restoration.
My picture gallery is only the tip of the iceberg, The majority of my albums are filled with confidential designs that I cannot post. When I build a research proto (at no charge to submitter) and it fails, it is at the discretion of the submitter as to releasing it for public view. Sorry to say that few are willing to do this.
Now I would like to emphasize on your statement; "You can't Patent it" You can and I believe that all members of this and any O-U involved forum should be aware of the fact.
I disagree with your statement that a gravity wheel cannot be patented, gravity wheel patents exist and they are still excepted. It is all in the strategy used in making the application and is the key to your submittal being accepted. You start by not calling it a "Perpetual Motion Machine" or a "Gravity Engine". Rather you refer to it as a Gravity assisted Amplifier or some such related flash of brilliance rather than a baffle of bull -----
After mailing in your application y certified mail and you have the dated postmasters receipt in hand it is dated by post mark. You can now legally state that you have a "Patent Pending" you are now covered and protected, now it is time to go public. You will then receive notification that your patent application has been received. They are slow, so figure on taking the opportunity to publicize your product to the fullest extent. You can even put it into production stamped "Patent Pending". In the meantime the patent examiner is pondering your machine and wondering exactly what category it fits into. If he refuses he must explain on what grounds he or she basis the decision on. Also it will be scrutinized to deem if it falls under the National Securities Act. A little late to worry there, you have already told the world of its existence.
Be prepared to take a trip! Chances are the patent officer reviewing your machine will not understand it, and he will refuse your application. You immediately file an appeal with the Patent Office Board of Appeals. You must travel to their office with a small working desk top model of your machine, set it on the desk directly in front of them. They cannot deny that it is not running. You "win" hands down. Now the bad part. The above scenario has been known to take up to 3 years to resolve. The good part is,you have already been in production for the better part of that 3 years, there is no way for the oil lobbies to influence the patent office into securing your patent by referring to the National Security Act.
My prime reference in backing this scenario and a valid legal precedent is the story of Howard Johnson and his marvelous magnetic motor. His motor never became a reality but every person involved in O-U research should recognize and appreciate the fact that he convinced the appeals board that magnets can and do meet the requirements deemed "work".. A precedent that opens the door allowing access to patenting any device based on the use of what is considered "conservative force".
I also have a marketing and management strategy outlined but will save it for another post!
Ralph
First off, Ralph has one heck of a workshop. He can put up pictures of it....it still wouldn't do it justice.
Alex, I have messed with MT's 24 and 25 before....I have also added the beams that go across and it doesn't give any excess energy. I thought in your original post that the curved levers were curved so that it would allow for these to lean on the axle, I must have been mistaken as that is not how you applied that. As it is, all of the weight of the beam is applied downward at about the 7 o'clock position that the levered rod arrangement cannot overcome. I don't think even with it leaning on the axle would help it to rotate perpetually. Fletch pretty much covered this....trading height for width and it balances out. Tried to post a pic of it from WM2D, but it's just over 50kb...
Steve
Quote from: bluesgtr44 on May 20, 2008, 01:20:52 PM
First off, Ralph has one heck of a workshop. He can put up pictures of it....it still wouldn't do it justice.
Alex, I have messed with MT's 24 and 25 before....I have also added the beams that go across and it doesn't give any excess energy. I thought in your original post that the curved levers were curved so that it would allow for these to lean on the axle, I must have been mistaken as that is not how you applied that. As it is, all of the weight of the beam is applied downward at about the 7 o'clock position that the levered rod arrangement cannot overcome. I don't think even with it leaning on the axle would help it to rotate perpetually. Fletch pretty much covered this....trading height for width and it balances out. Tried to post a pic of it from WM2D, but it's just over 50kb...
Steve
Trading height for width is bad, yes I understand which puts me off my wheel a little, but guess what, this new wheel which I will soon show, lifts the weight without trading height for width, all of the weights are equally placed around the wheel except that one side is over balanced, its as simpel as that, but I dont want to say to much yet, it does come from my previous wheel though...
I have been trying to get MT 13 in wm2d but daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn....wm2d is a very very very annoying piece of software for doing something which ought to be fast and simple. Anyways I have the wm2d file with me so the people that want to have a got at it can. The other that can't. Well it's basiclly very choppy,jumpy, error prone etc.
The actual concept has been drawn with autocad. It's kind of funny that wm2d fails at both the drawing part and physics part. It basiclly is a piece of junk. Anyways the file and a screen shot follow.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.besslerwheel.com%2Fwiki%2Fimages%2Fa%2Fa5%2FMt_013.gif&hash=206dc19d89be7a57877baa665a45eeec50953ea1)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi187.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fx12%2Fbroli123%2Fmt13wm2d.jpg&hash=cb80986129946dd44575f2a37193983cadf7e2f6)
http://broli.dommel.be/MT13.wm2d (http://broli.dommel.be/MT13.wm2d)
Hey its good that people are making these wheels, even though wm2d may not be 100% right, it at least it says something about these wheels, oh and I'm going to buy some weights on Saturday, I need them to be just a nice size and heavy enough so I will see what I can find...
Hi Broli,
nice design.
In my WM2D it runs !
YOu need to sunstitute the fixed pins with pin joints.
I will do thislater, as I have to go to work now
and post it later..
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 22, 2008, 07:57:40 AM
Hi Broli,
nice design.
In my WM2D it runs !
YOu need to sunstitute the fixed pins with pin joints.
I will do thislater, as I have to go to work now
and post it later..
Regards, Stefan.
It Runs? So maybe this wheel is important?
? Bessler wrote:
MT13... This is a new weight-invention, with no belts or chains but each weight is separate and free except that each has an interval arm C with which it forms an angle, and on the cylinder hangs a figure which has below a weight in the shape of a half-moon and above a small wheel B over which the arms C sweep and lift themselves up at D. This invention would be very good for running if not so much friction were present or someone was available up by D to always lift up the weight with lightning speed.
If you look at MT 15 the bottom of the small weighted arms, they are also bent this way, but even if MT 13 was included, there are still two extra weights on the ascending side...
Could this be a working wheel?
Sorry that its rushed, this is how it works...
the square weights are lifted at the top like MT 13
they are all connected to each other like MT 9
they are also connected to each other like my wheel
could this be how Bessler made his wheel work?
@Alexioco;
Stefan said that it runs, not works. I still need to perfect it so that friction is absolute minimum. This can be done with some gear type mechanism. Then I need to slap wm2d around so that it gives me stabel results.
Edit: Currently I think your previous wheel is better Alexioco, before adding this one let us first play around with it.
Quote from: broli on May 22, 2008, 09:18:03 AM
@Alexioco;
Stefan said that it runs, not works. I still need to perfect it so that friction is absolute minimum. This can be done with some gear type mechanism. Then I need to slap wm2d around so that it gives me stabel results.
How about the above wheel, does that hold any answer do you think or...?
Alexioco, I edited my above post I hope you read it.
Anyways I thought adding some type of wheels would make the the pushing smoother, untill I realised that these also could be weights assisting the motion due to the path they take.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi187.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fx12%2Fbroli123%2Fmt13wm2dV2.jpg&hash=bdbf64c576633179ba3cf225e372a25b559b84b7)
http://broli.dommel.be/MT13v3.wm2d (http://broli.dommel.be/MT13v2.wm2d)
Quote from: broli on May 22, 2008, 10:09:32 AM
Alexioco, I edited my above post I hope you read it.
Anyways I thought adding some type of wheels would make the the pushing smoother, untill I realised that these also could be weights assisting the motion due to the path they take.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi187.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fx12%2Fbroli123%2Fmt13wm2dV2.jpg&hash=bdbf64c576633179ba3cf225e372a25b559b84b7)
http://broli.dommel.be/MT13v2.wm2d (http://broli.dommel.be/MT13v2.wm2d)
Hey Broli, nice thinking, thats a really good idea, that should reduce quite a lot of friction, also having the smaller wheels as weights too is also a good idea, shame I can't get wm2d, my computer says the file is corrupt... So I cannot mess with this program too...
Greetings Alex
I think it is time for you to start getting enough tools to do better models of your ideas. This way you can build and see what happens in real time. Take a wood working class and use the tools there. There could be around you, a hobby shop where working is allowed this will help as well. Just throwing out ideas as fast as you have been doing is beginning to look like what we call where I live "swatting flies".
I suggest when you do a pattern. Look at it, and use the grids that I sent you, and use the strait down line as Ralph taught you. Then see for yourself if it has even a chance. But give it a little time and ponder on it to see what possible changes you may need to do if needed. Then try to build it. Fishing tackle stores you can find weights or you can make them out of old lead (heat outside never indoors, and don't breathe the fumes.) Poor in small tin cans, or cut off peaces of conduit pipe and such. This will be the best way to prove to yourself and others about your ideas.
You have a good head on your shoulders and an inventive mind. develop your skills and you will be complete.
Good luck
Yet another small modification...
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi187.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fx12%2Fbroli123%2Fmt13wm2dV3.jpg&hash=a1101e54db89b96d55f60d8cd1ac10d9b17845ef)
Quote from: AB Hammer on May 22, 2008, 10:19:37 AM
Greetings Alex
I think it is time for you to start getting enough tools to do better models of your ideas. This way you can build and see what happens in real time. Take a wood working class and use the tools there. There could be around you, a hobby shop where working is allowed this will help as well. Just throwing out ideas as fast as you have been doing is beginning to look like what we call where I live "swatting flies".
I suggest when you do a pattern. Look at it, and use the grids that I sent you, and use the strait down line as Ralph taught you. Then see for yourself if it has even a chance. But give it a little time and ponder on it to see what possible changes you may need to do if needed. Then try to build it. Fishing tackle stores you can find weights or you can make them out of old lead (heat outside never indoors, and don't breathe the fumes.) Poor in small tin cans, or cut off peaces of conduit pipe and such. This will be the best way to prove to yourself and others about your ideas.
You have a good head on your shoulders and an inventive mind. develop your skills and you will be complete.
Good luck
Hey Alan, I would like to work with you, shame you didn't live in England, we are full of Medieval History too :P
Is it possible we can talk on Bessler Quest or Email about working on those MT's and breaking them down? One by one till all of them are done, we are sure to find some very interesting stuff, plus two heads are better than one ;)
Hey Broli, your improving on that wheel really well, hmmm wander what eles you can do...
@ Alex
Yes we can to this, but be prepared to answer questions of observations. For the test will be many.
Quote from: AB Hammer on May 22, 2008, 10:54:34 AM
@ Alex
Yes we can to this, but be prepared to answer questions of observations. For the test will be many.
ok Alan, here is an MT Analysis form we can fill out for each MT.
MT AnalysisMT:
What is its function?
Why doesn?t it work?
What are its bad points?
What are its good points?
Meaning of Bessler's comment on the machine?
General comment on the machine;
So what do you think Alan? We can fill this out for every MT wheel, if anyone has got any other ideas for the MT Analysis then they are welcomed...
Alan every time we complete an MT Analysis, I shall gather them and save it until we have a complete MT Analysis...
Some of the wheels we will not be able to do because the drawings of hard to see, we can do all the ones redrawn plus the clear drawings by Bessler...
Alan here is the first MT Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MT: 1
What is its function?
Balls roll out from the axel on the descending side and roll in to the axel on the ascending side therefore causing one side of wheel to be over balanced
Why doesn?t it work?
Before the ball on the descending side has the chance to lift the ball on the ascending side high enough for it to roll in to the axel, an equilibrium is caused.
What are its bad points?
The balls on the descending side cannot push down far enough to cause a continuous off balance.
What are its good points?
The balls on the descending side are further from the axel than those on the ascending side.
Meaning of Bessler's comment on the machine?
In order for a weight to roll out on the descending side and in on the ascending side, the line must be rather straight or have a slope.
General comment on the machine;
This machine has no excess power, has a dead zone and it cannot overcome that dead zone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rest we can do on email, is this ok?
Alexioco, it's best to also add the image with the analysis so people know what you're talking about.
Quote from: broli on May 22, 2008, 12:18:06 PM
Alexioco, it's best to also add the image with the analysis so people know what you're talking about.
Well I thought that too, but it would mean uploading it everytime as you can't attach the files where you want them, any ideas? is tinypic.com good?
@ Alex
Well I had to take a break from my metal work, the humidity today is tough.
Your questions fine. but it need to be a little better direction, just a little more body so to speak. IMO.
For instance
What is its function?, I would ask. How was it suppose to function?
Why doesn?t it work? , I would ask. How was it not able to function?
Then I would ask. What would it take to make it function? and then. How are we going to do it? (and this would be the answer we are looking for). As is we know it won't work, but then we ask ourselves. Is it a lost cause, to try to go further? Or, How far can we take it? and What can we learn from it?
Just a few more questions to add.
I will email you with other information. to set this up properly.
Alan
Ok Alan, ill speak to you about this on email...
MT: 1
What is its function?
To show that such designs are futile, they make for symmetrical art work!
Why doesn?t it work?
Because the ascending side always has a balanced amount of mass with the descending side, It cannot lift the balls on the ascending side high enough for it to roll not into but over the axle, an equilibrium is caused.
What are its bad points?
Easeir to define by listing its good points! It has none.
What are its good points?
Symmetrical art work, some may call it "Pop-art"
Meaning of Bessler's comment on the machine?
In order for a weight to roll out on the descending side and in on the ascending side, the line must be rather straight or have a slope.
General comment on the machine;
This machine has no power what so ever, it has more dead zones than dynamic ones and it cannot overcome that which it doesn't even recognize as it cannot get there. An outside force to overcome static inertia will make it turn for a short while, but it will not self-suststain.
(Alex: axle is spelled a-x-l-e not a-x-e-l, no pun inteneded but you have been spelling it wrong since the start of your forum visits.
Ralph
Quote from: rlortie on May 22, 2008, 04:52:53 PM
MT: 1
What is its function?
To show that such designs are futile, they make for symmetrical art work!
Why doesn?t it work?
Because the ascending side always has a balanced amount of mass with the descending side, It cannot lift the balls on the ascending side high enough for it to roll not into but over the axle, an equilibrium is caused.
What are its bad points?
Easeir to define by listing its good points! It has none.
What are its good points?
Symmetrical art work, some may call it "Pop-art"
Meaning of Bessler's comment on the machine?
In order for a weight to roll out on the descending side and in on the ascending side, the line must be rather straight or have a slope.
General comment on the machine;
This machine has no power what so ever, it has more dead zones than dynamic ones and it cannot overcome that which it doesn't even recognize as it cannot get there. An outside force to overcome static inertia will make it turn for a short while, but it will not self-suststain.
(Alex: axle is spelled a-x-l-e not a-x-e-l, no pun inteneded but you have been spelling it wrong since the start of your forum visits.
Ralph
oh haha thanks ;D
and thanks for the input
Hi Alex,
what is your wheel doing ?
Did you already get any weights ?
No pictures or videos yet ?
Many thanks.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 23, 2008, 06:10:11 AM
Hi Alex,
what is your wheel doing ?
Did you already get any weights ?
No pictures or videos yet ?
Many thanks.
wow thats strange, i just sent you a picture and about a video on pm, nice timing eh ;) :D
Yeah, here is the latest picture of my wheel which was taken about hmmm 10 minutes ago...
Broli,
I cleared your simulation uo
and just simulated your wheel
without the new yellow balls and without the
ramp and then it comes to a stop after about 400 frames.
Will do all the other modifications later and post them.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
P.S: Sorry, have had no time yet to work on my
own wheel further.
Will do after the weekend... too much normal work to do here...uff..
Alexioc, can you also post the video please.
I dont know how so I sent it to Stefan, the weights are attached, the wheel is heavy and the weights lift at 12 o clock, I don't want to say anything until its complete though, then I will let you all know what happens
Hi,
I just did upload the Wheel_from_Alex.wmv
over here:
www.overunity.com/alexioco
Alex,
did you now finally attach the weights to your wheel ?
As you wrote me privately that it would not run,
maybe you can still post a video on youtube and
explain, why it did not work ?
Just speak in the video and explain where exactly it balances
out.
This will help us all to see from a builder, where the problems
are .
Many thanks in advance.
Regards, Stefan.
Well I don't think it will run now so in the video I shall explain why it wont run and all of its problems, anything else?
Quote from: Alexioco on May 28, 2008, 12:41:11 PM
Well I don't think it will run now so in the video I shall explain why it wont run and all of its problems, anything else?
Yes, just show us on youtube video, where the balance out points are and maybe a few ideas to overcome this ?
Seeing the wheel with the wheights and how it behaves is always more
ideal than just only seeing a simulation, which could be wrong...
So I would really love to see your wheel, how it behaves, if you give it a spin and how
exactly it comes to a stop and why..
Many thanks in advance.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on May 28, 2008, 12:49:38 PM
Yes, just show us on youtube video, where the balance out points are and maybe a few ideas to overcome this ?
Seeing the wheel with the wheights and how it behaves is always more
ideal than just only seeing a simulation, which could be wrong...
So I would really love to see your wheel, how it behaves, if you give it a spin and how
exactly it comes to a stop and why..
Many thanks in advance.
Regards, Stefan.
Ok today is the day, I?m off to get some masking tape right now so the toher side of the wheel can be fixed on, then the wheel will be complete today, and I will post a video on it...
back in a min :p
Ok I'm back with duck tape, I'm now off to finish my wheel...
Edit: Weights have been attached, now just the other side of the wheel needs to be attached and I am done, I can't wait
Quote from: Alexioco on May 28, 2008, 01:31:15 PM
Ok I'm back with duck tape, I'm now off to finish my wheel...
Edit: Weights have been attached, now just the other side of the wheel needs to be attached and I am done, I can't wait
Second Edit: Problem now, the hold in the middle of my wheel, both of them are not dead centre, the wheel turns when its put on an axle and stops when its weight is at the bottom, this goes for both wheels, luckily the holes are not to big, so I might be able to correct this, I have just used geometry to get the centre and I can now see that the hole is slightly off centre...
Problem now, the hole in the middle of my wheel, both of them are not dead centre, the wheel turns when its put on an axle and stops when its weight is at the bottom, this goes for both wheels, luckily the holes are not to big, so I might be able to correct this, I have just used geometry to get the centre and I can now see that the hole is slightly off centre...
[/quote]
Right now I have glued an axle on both wheels, then tomorrow put a nail through them for extra strength, I then shall attached the two wheels and see what happens, I will also then add a video...
Problem now, the hole in the middle of my wheel, both of them are not dead centre, the wheel turns when its put on an axle and stops when its weight is at the bottom, this goes for both wheels, luckily the holes are not to big, so I might be able to correct this, I have just used geometry to get the centre and I can now see that the hole is slightly off centre...
Right now I have glued an axle on both wheels, then tomorrow put a nail through them for extra strength, I then shall attached the two wheels and see what happens, I will also then add a video...
[/quote]
Edit: This is stressful work, its now the next day and the glue should of set, a nail needs putting through now, then attached the other side of the wheel with duck tape and I am complete...
The wheel is complete, but the wheel only turns a half because the axle in not centre, so I dont know what to do, ill post a video if you like...
Yes please post a video with vocal narration explainng how you wanted to do it and
give it a spin and let it run down.
Many thanks.
The footage is done, you might not be able to hear me all of the time, when you have seen the footage, I will answer requests if you have any...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzpGXN7lWcA
Ok I want to announce to you all that my wheel sadly does not work, here are the reasons why...
When the weights drop, they lift the other weights up which is supposed to cause rotation, but because the weights drop, it results in two extra weights collecting on the ascending side meaning that one cannot trade width for height...
Also a weight must travel straight from the axle to the rim of the wheel, a weight that travels half way up from the axle is not enough to sustain motion, a weight must travel the full distance in order to move the wheel enough for the next movement to happen...
In other words, the weights in my wheel do not move out and in far enough to sustain motion...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POaRvxsI25A
Kudos Alex,
You may have got a little presumptuous with your original concept of merging two or more MT designs. But like a man of integrity you followed through and lived up to the end result. Only in my opinion it is not the end results, unless you deem it as such!
Note; I do not specify the actual MT drawings by number, that is because your original private post contains reference to a drawing not mentioned on this thread. I told you that there was something wrong and you posted that I was right and was the only one to notice. You did not pick up on that which I was pointing out, and in my opinion your original concept is a long way from being dead!
Alex you are I believe a young man easily influenced. I have stayed out of the picture as you wanted to proceed on your own. I hold you in great respect for your innovation and your tenacity to build with limited resources. It is not many of us who would use cardboard and the backs of two chairs for an axle support.
Your concept, IMO still shows viable reasoning for farther research. By your choice I am not at liberty to divulge the discussion here. I give you an "A" for innovation, an "E" for effort and a "C" for letting yourself fall into "tunnel vision"...
Ralph
Quote from: rlortie on June 03, 2008, 08:37:39 PM
Kudos Alex,
You may have got a little presumptuous with your original concept of merging two or more MT designs. But like a man of integrity you followed through and lived up to the end result. Only in my opinion it is not the end results, unless you deem it as such!
Note; I do not specify the actual MT drawings by number, that is because your original private post contains reference to a drawing not mentioned on this thread. I told you that there was something wrong and you posted that I was right and was the only one to notice. You did not pick up on that which I was pointing out, and in my opinion your original concept is a long way from being dead!
Alex you are I believe a young man easily influenced. I have stayed out of the picture as you wanted to proceed on your own. I hold you in great respect for your innovation and your tenacity to build with limited resources. It is not many of us who would use cardboard and the backs of two chairs for an axle support.
Your concept, IMO still shows viable reasoning for farther research. By your choice I am not at liberty to divulge the discussion here. I give you an "A" for innovation, an "E" for effort and a "C" for letting yourself fall into "tunnel vision"...
Ralph
Lol I don't think its a different wheel Ralph? Also my wheel can be changed so it can have a better chance, MT 27 NEEDS to be added, I knew from the beginning that MT 27 was important but was unsure how to do it and thought my wheel already worked...
I will talk to you by email and me and you can work this wheel out because over the last few days I have made some very interesting discoveries about combinding those MTs...
Thanks for the A ;D
"In other words, the weights in my wheel do not move out and in far enough to sustain motion..."
alex
HMMM, i'll give you an A for building a wheel and trying to stay on task. But unfortunately F's all around for the rest of your behaviour. (i get lots of F's to so don't worry)
You were doing so well in the begining with myself and alen and working through thought process's on your own with new eyes which is great. But when you decided you alomost had it and began this campaign of disjointed threads shifting your ides every other day i became very much disinterested. And then the i know something but i'll show you later. C'mon i do that so it drove me crazy.
But Now that you see what happened, hopefully you will change your stategy on how you announce sucess's. Because you are one of the very few who are actually building and learning from models you still have a very good chance of learning and bringing yourself closer to a wheel that spontaneousl begins to rotate. Youv'e seen what doesn't feel right.
You can reread my MT's thoughts page, it will tell you EXACTLY why.
"In other words, the weights in my wheel do not move out and in far enough to sustain motion..."
I am not a wheel expert, but the Mt's were designed to teach, I know your discussing them with other people, and i don't want to get involved with that, I have my opinions which is why i kept them separate in my own thread. But its not about combining the Mt's but learning form them each one will teach you a valuable lesson in the forces that will need to act together in the final working wheel. Its then up to you to be able to put all the pieces together (not literally). I repeat NOT Literally.
Quote from: Dgraphic911 on June 04, 2008, 09:32:17 AM
"In other words, the weights in my wheel do not move out and in far enough to sustain motion..."
alex
HMMM, i'll give you an A for building a wheel and trying to stay on task. But unfortunately F's all around for the rest of your behaviour. (i get lots of F's to so don't worry)
You were doing so well in the begining with myself and alen and working through thought process's on your own with new eyes which is great. But when you decided you alomost had it and began this campaign of disjointed threads shifting your ides every other day i became very much disinterested. And then the i know something but i'll show you later. C'mon i do that so it drove me crazy.
But Now that you see what happened, hopefully you will change your stategy on how you announce sucess's. Because you are one of the very few who are actually building and learning from models you still have a very good chance of learning and bringing yourself closer to a wheel that spontaneousl begins to rotate. Youv'e seen what doesn't feel right.
You can reread my MT's thoughts page, it will tell you EXACTLY why.
"In other words, the weights in my wheel do not move out and in far enough to sustain motion..."
I am not a wheel expert, but the Mt's were designed to teach, I know your discussing them with other people, and i don't want to get involved with that, I have my opinions which is why i kept them separate in my own thread. But its not about combining the Mt's but learning form them each one will teach you a valuable lesson in the forces that will need to act together in the final working wheel. Its then up to you to be able to put all the pieces together (not literally). I repeat NOT Literally.
I agree, I will not again post anything of success until I have built my wheels...
Also where can I read about your MT thoughts?
@Alexioco - what happened to your website...?
http://z11.invisionfree.com/Bessler_Quest/index.php?showforum=1 (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Bessler_Quest/index.php?showforum=1)
Hey Alex
Have you looked at mt 136 much?
I have been looking at all of them, and this one just stands out to me, to have something a little unique. the levers labeled D on the outside of the wheel strike me as something that could be quite usefully implimented in a wheel.
Imagine that one side of each lever had a weight that was much larger than the other. The actual weight on each side would be the same. (ie a 1 pound and a 10 pound weight on each side) I don't think it would necessarily help the wheel turn, but what it would do is always want to have the heavy side of the lever down.
If the wheel were turning clockwise, the lever on the right would have the heavy weight on the bottom, and the light weight on the top. As it passed the bottom of the wheel, it would rotate 180 degrees to have the heavy weight at the bottom. It would do the same thing at the top.
I don't see the weights themselves adding rotation, (maybe they would...I haven't built it yet) but I don't think those rotating weights would take away anything either. It's like a way of pulling energy from the rotating wheel. I would think that those rotating levers could be used to help overbalance the wheel elsewhere.
I don't mean to change the topic of the thread, I just thought I would throw that out there.
peace
mark
Here's another thought on that same one. It looks like there are springs near the axel of the design, or threads of a screw. Both of which could be used. Either the spring to help with the rotation at the top and bottom (which would be the easiest place for the rotation)
If they are screw threads, I think it's even more interesting. The rotation of the weights could be used to change the center point of the wheel, thus overbalancing it.
By the way, I wrote these to Alex, but if anyone else has any kernels of wizdom, I would really love to hear them.
peace
mark
Quote from: markh on July 30, 2008, 12:46:55 AM
Here's another thought on that same one. It looks like there are springs near the axel of the design, or threads of a screw. Both of which could be used. Either the spring to help with the rotation at the top and bottom (which would be the easiest place for the rotation)
If they are screw threads, I think it's even more interesting. The rotation of the weights could be used to change the center point of the wheel, thus overbalancing it.
By the way, I wrote these to Alex, but if anyone else has any kernels of wizdom, I would really love to hear them.
peace
mark
Hello Mark, glad to see you are interested and trying, I invite more ideas still :)
Yes this is a wheel I have not looked at but now that you mention it, it seems something of an importance...
About the large and small lever idea, that seems great and like you said, its getting power from the wheel itself, very good...
The those levers that flip just like "jacobs ladder" could be used to litt other weights, infact, they act just like jacobs ladder, on the descending side one flips to the right and on the ascending side one flips to the left, then this can be used for other things, WOW you have got me thinking now :P
Alex
Edit: If you look at that wheel and the position of the D's, they all face downward like thats the heavy end, when they flip to the right, they may release a spring and when they flip to the left they may pull them back in...
I agree, it seems like a viable way to move things. The more I think about it ,the weights themselves would also affect rotation. (I think) If the top and bottom one are both facing to the right (their heavy side on the right) , It seems that it would push the wheel clockwise. I am more than willing to be wrong on this one, but if you could have a spring to assist in the rotation at the most efficient spot (directly up and down) that it seems like the wheel would move. It seems almost too simple to be the answer. Thus I'm not holding my breath, but as soon as I can, I think this is going to be my first actual build. Unfortunately I probably won't be able to start my wheel build for another month or so, but I'm looking forward to it.
I always look at these MT drawings, and think of them too often as 2 dimensional wheels. I think we have to always think about how these wheels may interact in 3-d space, like that lever rotating toward us. Due to his clues about it being so simple that a carptener's apprentice could do it, i think it's got to be something that is right in front of us, but none of us are seeing it, our brains aren't putting together the clues in the right order.
I know, I know, it can't be done, and it's impossible. I look at this more like the ultimate brain teaser. It's about seeing if you can figure it out. You never know, we just may figure it out.
peace
mark
HI Alex and Mark H: Here is an Idea I have about the above drawing #136, What if the levers at "D" were not levers at all but leaf springs and attached to the springs are those half round weights, now instead of this whole apparattus being outside the wheel, it fits inside so that the combined weight of both crossbars pushes the bottom leaf spring flat to the inside curve of the wheel. But at the top that leaf spring would be straight so that the weights could just make contact with the inside rim of the wheel. Now all the weight of the crossbars is stored as energy in the bottom leaf spring and lets say we turn the wheel clockwise as the 6 O clock position heads towards 9 O clock CF and gravity release some of their hold and the springs force the entire inner mechanism towards 3O clock. Just a theory what say you?
Hey Dr
That's interesting, its like you are separating the inside from the wheel, I must admit my math on this whole concept is limited, so I'm going to have to rely on my build coming up (hopefully soon) but it seems like a very interesting idea.
peace
mark
The whole is the sum of its parts.
Any combination of the MT's should produce a more complex machine resulting in an average of its parts.
No where in the MT's can a solution disproving the conservative nature of gravity be found. Those graphics might better be viewed as an historical overview of attempts.
Most looking for an answer to this perplexing riddle either review historical efforts seeing the beauty of Da Vinci's D curves or happen on them independently. In either case it's mathematically provable to be a dead end.
Some of the greatest mechanical geniuses God has blessed humanity with have attempted this riddle. Some become bitter heaps complaining when people talk too much then when people don't talk enough.
Now if you can do the math disproving the conservative nature of gravity you might have a sound idea to build. An alternative to working the equations is to build and let reality do the math. Either way the math will be done.
That's all I got to say about this matter.
I have posted this theory over at Re: New accelerating gravity wheel ! Converted video from but I feel that this is a better home for it and so will repost it here modified:
Hello everyone: I am new here but I feel as though I know many of you well, having read till my eyes blurred. Bessler said something to the effect; "...taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will be possible to find a valid description of motion." but motion may not be the best translation, perhaps movement as in the movement of a clock.
I believe that Bessler's movement has been right in front of our eyes for 300 years and no one until perhaps me, saw it for what it was. What I have to say will give credence to Bob's design and lend a great deal of insight into what I preceive to be the most logical explanation. I like the idea of open source but remember where this comes from... Bessler himself.
In the following illustration of Bessler's, note the stampmill on the extreme left. I do not believe that this was placed in this illustration to denote that his wheel was capable of doing work. This is the internal mechanism of the machine. In other words this is a rendering of what is actually inside Besslers wheel.
That the rods were moved from 5:00 to 12:00 by means of the very similar workings of a stamp mill cams and collars were used. The cams in Bessler's wheel were connected to an inner shaft that was independant of the wheel but connected to the pendulum. In this manner the pendulum not only regulated the the speed of the wheel by determining at what angle or time each rod would be lifted (if the wheel is going too fast the rod would meet the cam at 4:00 instead of 5:00 etc) but I surmise that the pendulum initially added the extra power needed to lift a rod ( at lower rpm) by turning the cam in the opposite direction of the on-coming rod. This again lends more credence to Bob's design which uses a lifting cam. In Bessler's wheel the collar on the lifting rod rode up the cam as the wheel turned but at the same time the cam was being turned or forced under the collar by the pendulum. Once the wheel had gained inertia the pendulum could be haulted in the virtical.
When Bessler wanted to slow or stop his wheel he needed only to rotate this cam so that the weights began ascending while outboard. Bob's device would benefit by this moving cam arrangement rather than using a disk brake to regulate speed.
If nothing else this theory of mine would add the additional inertia (that of the independant pendulum helping to lift the rods) which is wanting to bring Bessler's wheel into line with the laws of physics.
In the following illustration it seems clear that these push rods or shafts went through drum/axel. I feel certain that the cam shaft that was connected to the pendulum went through all of the rods that were cut out (with long ovals) so as to move around the shaft and still be able to travel up and down.
Though it flies in the face of what has been said about the gentle starting of Bessler's wheel, it occurs to me that the rope around the axel going out the window to the palat of bricks was not a demonstration of potential work either but rather the only means Bessler had of getting his wheel up to sufficient speed to have adequate centrifugal force to carry the shaft from where it was thrown to just past neutral to where it could be flung to it's outer stops on the opposing side. In short it is possible that the rope was a starter cord. I'm sticking to the stamp mill mechanism but I'm not married to the starting cord.
My hypothesis is further based on Bessler's four and six rod drawings in which two opposing weights were placed on the ends of push rods or shafts that went through or just beside the axis. I believe Bessler's shafts were square though the weights may have been cylendrical.
Bessler's wheel was unique from all the previous designs of mass shifting over-balance wheels in that his wheel alone utilized the potential created by five decending weights to lift only one weight at a time vs several or half of them and (2) he utilized, at least in starting up his wheel, a pendulum that provided external force to aid in the lifting of the individual weights. (3) Bessler's design only needed to lift each weight a small distance beyond the neautral point where in centrifugal force carried the weight the remainder of the distance.
If there exists, even the remostest possibility that Bessler's was a workable design then it would be incredibly remiss of all who take an interest in such folly not to pursue this endeavor to its extremes. A successful wheel of this nature is exactly what the world needs right now on just about every level I can think of.
hi guys, been working on this over at energeticforum...
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3703-mechanical-engine-20.html
here's some of my videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPi4-fpMBJ0&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSGUmM0IV2Y&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsnXO3eKlzE&
Love and light
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp8UDxR0_SI&
Noob here.. probably off topic but thought I might make a few comments... I've read alot of imformation on Besslers wheels including eyewitness statments from individuals who actually saw the device... (and please correct me if I get some of the facts wrong (and spelling as well :)) but what I understand about his wheels is as follows (the first wheel which was unidirectional)...
-Size (first wheel) diameter ~4' width ~9"
-Weights - cylinder shaped... about 4 pounds.. Bessler allowed people to hold them.... but wouldn't let them touch the ends (Critical to the design? Tapered? Hooks? Hollow?)
-The device would take 4 to 5 rotations to get upto running speed of 52 revolutions per min from a dead stop... can a rate of accelleration be calculated from this?
-The sides were covered with cheese cloth to prevent someone looking at the internal workings at one point... and wood at others - this suggests the system would work in a non closed fashion so do the weights have some track system to run on?
-Noise - many individuals noted 8 distinct "impacts of the weights hitting the frame".... and were very specific about that number... Why were they sure that the eights impacts were different? shouldn't they have all sounded the same? I'm sure other situations could exist where they could differentiate the eight distinct sounds... but could it imply that those eight impacts occurred rapidly ... then a pause then eight more?
-The later versions (which frankly I'd rather have the first one... more power ;D ) were bi-directional.... which stands to reason that one side of the wheel was a mirror image of the other..
- The motor could lift a 40# crate using pulleys at a 4:1 ratio with only a 2 to 3 revolutions per minute speed loss.... (overunity implied but also should give some clue as to the unbalanced weight ratio...)
Now I'm going to show my lack of knowledge ... but every system I've seen shows items working in pairs... Why? I'm not a engineer... but it seems to me that in order to raise a weight on one side of a wheel you better have at least 2 or more weights on the other side to overcome friction. Taking the weight difference necessarry on one side to maintain movement you should be able to calculate ratio's.... (1 ball requires 2 to lift... 2 need 3... 3 need 6... etc) (Gut feeling here but I believe an odd number of weights would be more likely to product results and how can an even number be unbalance?). Also, if you are going to maintain a weight ratio that will mean the weight traveling upward will either need to travel at considerable more velocity to maintain that ratio or travel considerable less distance (or even some combination of both)...
anyway... these were my noob uneducated thoughts.... critized condemn and or praise as desired...
Ok.... I'm noticing a problem with this site... cant stop thinking about it.
Imagine a wheel within a wheel... spoked like a bike pedal assembly the inner wheel only engages when rotating in one direction.
Imagine a leaf spring with supporting notches for weights to rest in that would catch on the outter edge of the inner wheel...which has slotted compartments in it this spring can fling 16 pounts as long as the outer weight isn't in place as the weight winds the leaf spring it shortens eventually allowing the end weight to fall off the spring. The other 4 are catapulted into a wall that absorbs the energy rotating the inner wheel in the opposite direction (thus spinnging the outer wheel as well). Mean while the 5th weight that has falling into one of the slots is rotated along the wheel untill it falls back onto the holding slot of the leaf spring starting the process over again. Remember on some of the diagrams the cross shaped object on the out side? a counter weight to keep the inner wheel from spinning to far so the weights are aways some where within the 12 to 5 o'clock position. the eight distictive thuds I mentioned above? 4 weights hitting the stop board... then falling back to to the leaf spring loading area... maybe I should move this to half baked....
Very one in the world has to see this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6gaN8gRs5A
Hello :) I have discovered a new principle and I now know why people cannot solve the problems with the Bessler gravity wheel.
The main reason people cannot solve the problems is this FACT! : it is NOT a gravity wheel.
The good thing is it is Perpetual Motion. It does not break any of the so-called laws of physics.
I used a bicycle wheel some levers and weights all you need now is the bumblebee principle and away it goes. ;)
I will not give you that yet because I am writing book with plans.
But I will tell you this : Centrifugal force is your friend and do not worry to much about friction.
There are some very clever people on this site, so come on think different, Bessler will be famous for the right reasons.
@Bumblebee:
I respect your discovery and research ~ but are you willing to share at least a photo of your build?
I'm just interested in more clues. . . .
truesearch
Quote from: truesearch on January 24, 2013, 11:00:06 AM
@Bumblebee:
I respect your discovery and research ~ but are you willing to share at least a photo of your build?
I'm just interested in more clues. . . .
truesearch
I am more than happy to give you more clues..... Thank you for the encouragement , here's two the fulcrum of the levers is on the outside edge of the wheel and it is set at 90 degrees to the main axle.
I have decided to share my discovery. I am hopeless with computers I would have to describe things and others would have to do the diagrams ;D I discovered this many years ago and got paranoid anyway...Do I need to start a new subject thread.....HELP!!!
Quote from: Gianna on January 25, 2013, 03:11:50 AM
Rubbish, I'm willing to bet you've discovered absolutely nothing, and will just play people for the 'secret'.
So are you saying you are not interested ? why are you on this site ?
How much is the bet ?
Quote from: Inquorate on May 19, 2009, 09:05:42 PM
hi guys, been working on this over at energeticforum...
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3703-mechanical-engine-20.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3703-mechanical-engine-20.html)
here's some of my videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPi4-fpMBJ0& (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPi4-fpMBJ0&)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSGUmM0IV2Y& (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSGUmM0IV2Y&)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsnXO3eKlzE& (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsnXO3eKlzE&)
Love and light
Inquorate,
Someone named Peter lindeman along with rlortie have built something similar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEsqipy5ik0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEsqipy5ik0)
I'm getting ready to build when I get my tax return. Some in here who harass me haven't built so...
Still, have deleted all my videos but uploaded a new one. Am trying to make Heron's Fountain flow perpetually.
Still, do believe this is a skeptics forum because those are the only credible people here :o
Quote from: Gianna on January 25, 2013, 11:15:28 PM
One of the reasons I am here is to stop people being mis-led by fraudulent or inaccurate claims.
You've already made one by saying "The good thing is it is Perpetual Motion. It does not break any of the so-called laws of physics".
Perpetual motion does break the laws of physics, so your device cannot work as claimed.
And yes , I'm prepared to bet any amount you'd care to lose to back up the assertion.
Ok I will take back the Perpetual Motion and say... It will run until the parts wear out or I remove the control arm. It still doesn't break any of the so-called laws of physics.
I have enough money thanks.
Quote from: Bumblebee on January 25, 2013, 10:05:27 PM
I am more than happy to give you more clues..... Thank you for the encouragement , here's two the fulcrum of the levers is on the outside edge of the wheel and it is set at 90 degrees to the main axle.
I have decided to share my discovery. I am hopeless with computers I would have to describe things and others would have to do the diagrams ;D I discovered this many years ago and got paranoid anyway...Do I need to start a new subject thread.....HELP!!!
Yes please start a new thread and put Bumblebee in it ;) Put a link to it also in this thread. As for diagrams - you can use paint at the beggining - others will redraw it if needed. Thanks in advance.
Quote from: Bumblebee on January 25, 2013, 10:05:27 PM
I am more than happy to give you more clues..... Thank you for the encouragement , here's two the fulcrum of the levers is on the outside edge of the wheel and it is set at 90 degrees to the main axle.
I have decided to share my discovery. I am hopeless with computers I would have to describe things and others would have to do the diagrams ;D I discovered this many years ago and got paranoid anyway...Do I need to start a new subject thread.....HELP!!!
your claim and style is old news. countless others have made the same claim giving us useless clues. i doubt you'll be any different.
i'd say open source your discovery or don't share it at all. these little clue games does not help and im
sure most of us who have been in search for many years are sick of it.
im not saying you're lying but you have to understand this happens all the time.
prove me wrong and open source it.
Quote from: Bumblebee on January 24, 2013, 10:01:05 AM
But I will tell you this : Centrifugal force is your friend and do not worry to much about friction.
Yes, indeed!
A few hints from the eyewitness accounts:
The wheel
a) can rotate in both direction, so the interior has to be constructed symmetrically.
b) needs a push to go, so it needs a bit centrifugal force in order to start rotating.
c) accelerates to no more than 26 rpm, so the centrifugal force is also the clipper.
d) uses weights of cylindrical shape.
And in addition
e) Bessler worked as organ builder and watchmaker so he must have had a lot of experience with round things and also with rotating round things.
Now here are
some equations by Jovan Marjanovic (http://www.overunity.com/9847/angular-momentum-parametric-oscillator-and-over-unity/) and the conclusion thereof:
»Because energy invested to move the satellite from orbit 1 to orbit 2 was equal to ΔEp and according to formula (16) it is equal to Ek1, for the same amount should total energy of orbit 2 be greater than total energy of orbit 1. However, according to formula (22) that amount is smaller, which means that there is energy loss of orbit 2 equal to ¾ Ek1. It also means that
the law of conversation of energy is not valid for satellites if they change orbits.«
So what could it mean regarding the known facts about the Bessler Wheel when the law of conservation of energy is not valid as soon as centrifugal and centripetal (gravitational) forces are involved?
Don't know yet but one thing is for sure, while turning a wheel perpendicular to the ground, on the bottom the centrifugal force and the gravitational force sums up, whereas at the top of the wheel the centrifugal force counteracts the gravitational force, so something attached to the wheel (or within the wheel) would be weightless at a certain speed while passing the top (like
these boats dislodged (http://www.overunity.com/13218/perpetual-motion/) from suspension and therefore have for a brief period no physical contact with the wheel).
Any further ideas?
Supplement: Let's say the wheel turns clockwise. The weights (at least two opposite to each other) are heavier passing the bottom than passing the top. Then the task would be to achieve that due to this difference a weight going up on the left side is rather pushed towards the center whereas a weight going down on the right side is rather pushed towards the rim. This way the wheel would be dynamically over balanced at the right side due to the centrifugal force acting on its weights but not when the wheel is at rest. Maybe that will never work, but at least the concept is simple.
Let me know if it works nevertheless. :)