Just in:
Dear friends,
we are glad to inform and present you a paper written by the American scientist, Peter Lindemann, D.Sc. considering the famous invention of Bessler's Wheel and possible solutions for its re-evolution with the inspiration found in the ideas like Veljko Milkovic's two-stage mechanical oscillator is.
Peter Lindemann, D.Sc. - The Mechanical Engine: A Re-Evolution of Bessler's Wheel
You can read the paper on the next link (1.25 MB - PDF):
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Dr_Peter_Lindemann_Mechanical_Engine.pdf
In the same time we are inviting you to visit great new web-site of Peter Lindemann, D.Sc. www.free-energy.ws with many new texts and articles on new technologies and free eneregy issues.
Kind regards.
PR & Web team
academician Veljko Milkovic and associates
Two-Stage Mechanical Oscillations Research Lab
Bulevar cara Lazara 56
21000 Novi Sad
Serbia
e-mail: milkovic@neobee.net
web: www.veljkomilkovic.com
Nice find Stefan,
I wonder if he's built it ?
Shame it's hard to design in WM2D but I'm sure someone will have a go at a modified design..
EDIT: added image from PDF
QuoteAs of this writing, the Mechanical Engine has not been built and tested. The purpose of publishing the design “unproven†is to encourage its broad circulation among researchers, worldwide, without the burden of making claims and presenting proofs. It’s a theory. At some point, the operational status of this design will become known. If you choose to withhold judgment until then, that is fine. But if you see the possibilities, you are invited to get involved by building one, or spreading the word.
There are those who will reject this thesis outright, without even considering the design and the mechanical forces involved. They will site various Laws of Thermodynamics and be content in their world view. This is not science, but it is typical of human nature.
Is this to imply that I can now talk freely of this device and receive recognition for my efforts for which I am not recognized for in this article?
Cc to Peter Lindemann via private mail
Ralph Lortie
Did Bessler not advertise his wheel as a "pendulum wheel" when he invited the 1st group of people to his house for demonstration, I think he did.
@rlortie, if this is your design then hats off to you, it's a marvelous design and I hope people will build and hopefully prove the design.
Great work.
Due to personal emotions derived from reading the above paper, I currently withhold my input regarding this thread.
I do ask that members such as AB Hammer and other builders, scrutinize it carefully and post your findings. I will respond in due time with reservation.
Ralph
What an unexpected post, :-\
rlortie, you should be proud, I feel backing off now will only cause to confuse and cast doubt...
hey ho...
Quote from: mindsweeper on February 03, 2009, 03:40:53 PM
Did Bessler not advertise his wheel as a "pendulum wheel" when he invited the 1st group of people to his house for demonstration, I think he did.
@rlortie, if this is your design then hats off to you, it's a marvelous design and I hope people will build and hopefully prove the design.
@mindsweeper,
No! this is not my design and I wish to state that with great adamant! I believe in giving credit where and when due, something some appear to ignore or intentionally avoid.
Yes I have been involved with the design and have had it in my possession since shortly after the dates given on the paper. I will divulge more if and when this thread becomes more analytical involved.
As for Bessler, his opening words to get your attention and interest was: "My machine will barely run with one cross bar, but when I add more".... Not an exact quote but close, thanks to John Collins.
Ralph
Rlortie:
My wheel will barely run with one weight set too. Add the second and your off and running.
My wheel is electric assisted tho, so a different animal it is.
thaelin
Personally the C/M is without doubt offset, the question is will the pendulum have enough energy from the spring to return to the capture ratchet.
I cannot say and am attempting to replicate in WM2D but it's a hard design to replicate.
At point #3, that ball WILL NOT reach the ratchet because it has to swing back against the wheel that is turning clockwise (hope it's turing clockwise). Since that is the main point where any potential gain can occur, this design, in my opinion, is a medium maybe.
The other and greatest point is the ball (weight transfer) to wheel weight (momentum) ratio. The balls should be a good 2-3 times bigger then drawn to help create any meaningful momentum. I learned that one the hard way. This means if the ball at #3 position is the only chance to create an off balance, then that off balance has to be greater then all the friction of the wheel including the friction involved incluing at #2 to release the ball.
But I like the design.
Quote from: mindsweeper on February 03, 2009, 04:17:49 PM
Personally the C/M is without doubt offset, the question is will the pendulum have enough energy from the spring to return to the capture ratchet.
I cannot say and am attempting to replicate in WM2D but it's a hard design to replicate.
I like AB Hammer am a hands on researcher, I do not know diddly squat regarding WM2D. I do however agree that it would be interesting to hear if you can duplicate it and advise of your results.
I have already formed my opinion, and wish for others to objectively post their findings without my bias. After all I may have missed something.
Also keep in mind that I was placed under an oath of confidence never to reveal anything regarding this design or its inventor. In fact after finalizing my work, I was asked to destroy it and all pertinent communication, which I did.
Ralph
G'day all,
Will NOT work. The position of the pendulum in segment 3 is not achievable with the device as drawn. The energy imparted to the spring is insufficient.
Hans von Lieven
Maybe a dumb question (and YES there are some, lol): Is this thing supposed to rotate (which would impart additional pendulum energy to each specific segment as it did), or does it remain relatively static?
Quote from: hansvonlieven on February 03, 2009, 05:33:28 PM
G'day all,
Will NOT work. The position of the pendulum in segment 3 is not achievable with the device as drawn. The energy imparted to the spring is insufficient.
Hans von Lieven
Thank you Hans, you have clipped a good portion off the tip of the iceberg, need not stop here as there is still plenty afloat.
Ralph
Greetings Ralph and all
I have looked at the wheel and I find it interesting and a fair amount of work went into it. A look with my grid only shows a single point of advantage due to the swing and that normally gets eat up by friction. But the release is very interesting and there may be other uses for it. The swing having a pendulum downward force does have some advantage but I don't see enough here to get excited about. I also don't see the pendulum swing getting back to the catch either due to if it is turning you loose the return swing. Like Hans noted.
Sorry but I don't see a runner here.
Gentleman,
Peter Lindemann has responded with a reply regarding my release of our confidential agreement.
Below is a copy of his letter which I shall break down and respond to, paragraph by paragraph.
QuoteThe article was written before you ran your tests, which is why "your efforts" are not mentioned. As far as I am concerned, your preliminary tests did not constitute a "fair trial" of the ideas, since you were unwilling to meet with me or give me any input into the tests you ran. This is why I believe the statement in the article is still correct. The design is "unproven" either way. Also, you made NO contribution to the ideas as they are represented in the article.
As to why my efforts are not mentioned is not a problem. As to my efforts I feel I did give it a fair trial and responded accordingly. The fact that I did not meet with you is twofold. First I wish to keep any personal bias from influencing an analytical research procedure. Second: IMO by the time a meet could have been scheduled I had ascertained that it was not cost effective to discuss a dead horse.
True I made no contribution or claim to the idea. I only stated that my findings were of negative results. The primary problem as reported to you was that the pendulums must have a force exceeding the ratchet levers weight to engage, thus the ratchet lever mus be able to retain the pendulum. Centrifugal force on the roller cam of said lever will overcome this delicate balance releasing the pendulum prematurely. That is providing it ever obtains a point of latch which as Hans describes it will not achieve.
QuoteThe article, in its final form, is dated January 29, 2007. This is the exact text of the article I have released. I first contacted you on February 5, 2007 and sent you a copy of this exact article on the following day. I have all of the emails of our correspondence in my files. We also spoke on the phone and I specifically stated I wished to come to visit you so we could work out the fine details of the design.
Thanks for the occurred time reference. I can not verify as all records were destroyed as per your wish. Peter you can come visit me anytime you wish, As for working out the final design, I felt would be a waste of time and expense. I did not and do not see any fine details to work out. It is your design, I am not sold on it, I ran conclusive tests on the idea that convinced me is would not work. I am not saying it will not work in general, it would not work for me!
Now that you have "Free sourced" the design, I can leave it up to those of interest to confirm or repute my findings. I have no 'think-tank' to offer on this design.
QuoteAgainst my wishes, you ran some quick tests and told me that it didn't work, and that it was of no use for me to come visit
.
You may refer to my tests as 'quick' by your time. I gave it a fair and unbiased analytical objective test using empirical experience of past education. My reputation for doing so is why I assumed you accepted the referral you received bringing me to your attention. An experienced hands on approach does not require a hypothesis, or pages of math, Your design was sufficient and left no questions about its build or method of operation.
QuoteIf this is what you mean by "your efforts" than you are, of course, free to speak your truth. But quite honestly, I can't imagine what you believe you are due to "receive recognition" for, other than running a few failed tests that I never saw and have no idea if they were related to my designs at all.
Thank you! and as you say I do not deserve or want recognition for your design, I only questioned the statement;
QuoteAs of this writing, the Mechanical Engine has not been built and tested. The purpose of publishing the design “unproven†is to encourage its broad circulation among researchers, worldwide, without the burden of making claims and presenting proofs.
You have now explained this, by stating it was written one month before you contacted me. I wish now to claim that that the design has been researched to a point that IMO of not being viable for farther analysis. Once again I am not stating that the machine is a non-runner, this is my opinion and should not dampen the spirits of any enthusiast wishing to find out for themselves.
QuoteYou told me that your simple, preliminary tests suggested to you that the design "didn't work" because the weights would just fly all the way out and stay on the perimeter. But, to my knowledge, you never built the whole machine, or attempted to run it slow enough so that this phenomena did NOT occur. Since proper function of the machine depends on the weights being able to spring back toward the center, your report that they "don't" simply indicated to me that you did not take the time to either understand the machine or attempt to test it in its "operating window".
I believe I carried the test far enough to observe that between the pendulums verses the ratchet roller arms there enough contention between Centrifugal force and Centripetal to negate functional operation. Providing the pendulum swing gained the required azimuth to lock into the ratchet, the roller cams effected by CF would allow it to unlock prematurely. A lower rpm of the embodiment and you lose the pendulum reciprocating cycle.
QuoteIn our last phone call, we decided to end our efforts on the project. I asked you to destroy your files and you agreed to. I also wish to acknowledge that you have honored your commitment to keep the design confidential up until now. Thank you.
In all fairness, Ralph, you are welcome to tell people that I contacted you with the design (as published) in February of 2007, and that you ran some preliminary tests which lead you to believe "whatever you believe". If, however, you wish to tell people that "it doesn't work", I believe you are being unfair. On the other hand, if you tell people about the tests you ran and your results, I have no problem with that. You see, I believe your tests indicate that it will work IF the speed is restrained, so we have a difference of interpretation on your test results. Also, if you have worked with the ideas since then, and you have made your own designs based on mine as a starting place, then simple state these facts and publish whatever you have done that is genuinely YOURS.
With due respect I thank you. I am not saying it does not work, only that my opinion differs, I have not worked with the idea nor have I made any designs based on your concept. I have nothing to report either as a follow-up or augmentation of your design. My own work is discussed by telephone, and private mail. I/we will publish when the time is right! Remember, most of my work is based on confidential submitters which you have complimented me on for living up to my oath and integrity.
QuoteJust don't forget, both Veljko Milkovic, John Collins and others received copies of this article BEFORE I sent it to you, so you would be unwise to try to claim any credit for what is published in my article titled The Mechanical Engine.As long as you report honestly what happened, I have no problem with it.
In that respect you need not worry or give caution, having made an opinionated denouncement of the machine, why would I wish to claim any part of it? My only point is to clarify that the machine has been tested since your letter was written.
I will continue to advise and assist anyone wishing to pursue this concept in any way that I can assist. A pessimist and and optimist make for innovative debate.
Regards, and hopefully closing on a mutual understanding.
Ralph
Quote from: hansvonlieven on February 03, 2009, 05:33:28 PM
G'day all,
Will NOT work. The position of the pendulum in segment 3 is not achievable with the device as drawn. The energy imparted to the spring is insufficient.
Hans von Lieven
Yes. Hans is TOTALLY wright.... And Wattsup was the first to point out the " 3rd section problem"....
No further comment needed....
Mr. Lindemann,
Your document is a good read (for the Bessler enthusiasts like me..., however, it doesn't "hold water"...
As simply as that. OK???
Cheers!
I took the 3rd section drawing to only be representative of what happened before. NOT what will happen in that exact point in the rotation. Lindemann states that he thinks the release, swing, return bounce, and catch on the ratchet must all occur within a 45 degree span of the wheel's rotation. I would think it would/should/must occur in an even much smaller span of rotation. The entire swing motion of the weights, from release to latch, would actually occur at the point of rotation shown approximately at the 2nd section and a few degrees after. Of course the cam would have to be modified to allow for this to happen.
I believe this idea would benefit highly from a 2D simulation. Is anyone working on one?
Thanks,
M.
I realise this Mondrasek, It does not matter though, my comments still stand.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on February 03, 2009, 05:33:28 PM
The position of the pendulum in segment 3 is not achievable with the device as drawn. The energy imparted to the spring is insufficient.
Hans,
I agree that the position of the weight shown in segment 3 appears to be a bit out of reach per the provided diagrams of the design. But if you assume the wheel to be moving very slowly, and the release of the weighted pendulum is timed such that the weight is at 9 o'clock with respect to it's pivot point, would it not come back and catch somewhere on the ratchet, if not as far as drawn? Again, assuming the cam was such that the ratchet lever also reset almost immediately after the pendulum released?
Thanks,
M.
mondrasek,
I am sorry but Hans is correct.
I just received the following as an example from Ron P. and a very fine example it is. Being experienced in the field of cranes I can only slap myself in the face for not thinking of it myself.
The following is from a crane operators hand book, author unknown.
QuoteA skilled operator, through proper techniques, can minimize the amount a load will swing. For example, as the trolley starts forward, the load because of its inertia, will tend to remain stationary as shown moving the trolley with a suspended load. If the crane operator momentarily stops the trolley and waits for the load to swing forward, he can again start the trolley moving at the same speed as the load at the moment that the load is directly under the trolley. The trolley and the load will then continue to move along at the same constant velocity until another acceleration or
deceleration is applied to the trolley.
This same technique can be used to minimize swaying when the trolley is stopped. In this case the load will continue to travel forward after the trolley is stopped. At the precise moment that the velocity of the load becomes zero before it reverses direction the operator must step the trolley forward so that it is positioned directly over the load. These maneuvers depend on both the skill of the operator and on the speed and acceleration of the crane.
This is referred to as 'hook swing' and is a prime example of what will happen with the pendulums in Peters design. The traveling pivot point not unlike a crane trolley nullifies the bob swing.
In a follow up I received this:
Quotefunny thing is I am well aware that as you lower the pendulum
pivot point it kills the swing... but I missed it, but Hans got it right away.
Ralph
No Mondrasek,
if the wheel moves very slowly it makes it worse. The pendulum has its own natural frequency. The natural frequency of a pendulum is determined by the distance between the fulcrum and its centre of gravity and nothing else. By necessity the pendulum length is very short, therefore the thing in very fast, relatively speaking. As soon as the mechanism releases the pendulum it starts to swing. It reaches the opposite side very quickly and swings back before it gets even to the position indicated in the drawing. Because the arc at the point of release is small there will be very little power in it.
A design like this is not feasible, anyone who has studied pendulum physics can tell at a glance, without the need for calculation.
@ Ralph,
Correct, that is the other major snag and this one gets worse the higher the speed of the wheel.
Hans von Lieven
Ralph,
I appreciate the reply. But I still have trouble with that explanation. I can visualize several effects that work against the design if the wheel were to spin quickly, but these effects minimized towards zero as the speed of the wheel is minimized I think. For example, if you look only at the diagram on page 5 you must admit that releasing the weight from the ratchet and (allowing the ratchet to reset after the weight has fallen past) would result in the weight swinging to the spring and then bouncing back, ultimately coming to rest somewhere on the ratchet again. So while I agree at some rotational speed of the wheel this will no longer happen, I have to believe a slow speed range exists where it will.
Also, the design as presented appears to show all the elements (weighted pendulum, pivot point, release, etc.) in locations optimized for no additional forces due to the rotation of the wheel. I wonder if the optimum design and locations of these elements would not change if the rotational conditions were also considered. And I think this is what a 2D simulation could show. Or, if not, it would be easier for me to visualize how the rotational forces at any speed prevent the expect motion of the static device shown on page 5.
Thanks again,
M.
mondrasek ,
As per my agreement with Peter I am not here to tell you it will not work. All I am giving is examples of why I think it will not work.
Rather than debate the issue I recommend that you utilize your enthusiastic pursuit.
It has always been my opinion that if you are in doubt then build it. If you don't it will cloud your mind of other innovative ideas. You are exactly what Peter is looking for, someone with the belief they can turn it into a runner.
Ralph
Ralph,
Your examples of why it will not work are exactly the feedback that I appreciate. Same for Hans'. Learning the reason why something will not work is as informative as learning why it will.
I believe this idea is simple enough to be modeled in 2D simulation software to my satisfaction, if I cannot otherwise grasp or visualize reasons that are given for it not to work. I hope that someone with those capabilities and resources is willing to do so. I have no desire to build at this time.
One interesting point that followed from one of Hans' comments: One of Bessler's wheels was claimed to be 12 ft in diameter and ran without load at 26 RPM. A (simple) pendulum of the same natural frequency would be of a length of 5.2 inches. The size of such a wheel and pendulum appear to be in line.
M.
@ Mondrasek and anyone interested in pendulum physics.
Professor Franz-Josef Elmer, University of Basel, Switzerland has created a virtual pendulum laboratory that you can download in its entirety. It will teach all aspects of pendulum physics via a series of lectures and Java applets where you can study pendulum behaviour in a virtual reality by changing the parameters and observe the altered behaviour. I recommend this highly. You will find it here:
http://monet.physik.unibas.ch/~elmer/pendulum/index.html
Have fun with this, I know I had.
Hans von Lieven
mondrasek
I have a little test for you to try, This will help you understand.
Take a weight on a string. Swing it back and forth and the drop it about 6 inches at its approximately 6:00 position. Then you will see what happens to the swing. It tends to nearly stop swinging.
When in doubt test it out.
@AB Hammer,
Of that I have no doubt.
I believe my difficulty is with the frame of reference. In your example, only the pivot point was abruptly changed, downwards, thus negating the force of gravity that causes a pendulum to continue to swing (indefinitely if friction is removed). But if both the pendulum and the pivot point were initially moving downward at any given velocity, and then the pendulum was put in motion, would it still swing? I believe it would. In this new case both the pendulum and pivot are moving in the same frame of reference. But if you add *acceleration* to either, then that changes things.
In the case of Lindemann's idea, both the pendulum and the pivot are in the same frame of reference I believe. But they are both experiencing an acceleration due to the rotation of the wheel. I believe this is centripetal force? And depending on where in the rotational cycle this acceleration is allowed to act it can either aid or detract from the acceleration of gravity.
This I cannot visualize and therefore connot immediately dismiss this concept. So I hope to see a simulation, or build and experimental data. I fear the math is beyond me.
M.
@ Mondrasek
Look at this. The pendulum does not swing back.
Hans von Lieven
Thanks Hans, but unfortunately I do not have access to Working Model software. The demo version also does not allow me to open the file.
M.
Quote from: rlortie on February 03, 2009, 03:30:23 PM
Is this to imply that I can now talk freely of this device and receive recognition for my efforts for which I am not recognized for in this article?
Cc to Peter Lindemann via private mail
Ralph Lortie
The question might be something like ; How much downward force is generated by the pendulum while it is swinging ? I'd say very little. The force applied to it's point of rotation would be in the wrong dircection negating any hoped for gains.
Actually, position #3 is not the only hold back. There will not be enough rotational momentum to get over that center incline that is supposed to unlatch the ball at position #3. Don't forget that if the wheel can unlatch, that is "work" being done above and beyond the turning aspect and that will be very difficult to achieve.
Also, like I said before, the balls have to be much bigger. The bigger the balls the greater will be the excess at #3. The most difficult part of this type of build will be one of wheel balance that has to be done with all balls held inward or outward at the same position and the incline removed. Only then can the balancing be done. 1 gram of unbalance could kill it right from the start.
I like these ideas because I find them a relaxing change to the regular stuff I do with coil and pulses, etc.
But what I am mostly puzzled about is why all this secrecy in not being able to disclose this or that. Do you really think this device deserves so much cloaking. Do you expect to make millions with such a wheel and why. I don't get it.
Wattsup,
My name is Ralph Lortie, I have two shops attached to my house, one being for metal work and the other for woodworking. I do research on physical build gravity wheels as a full time hobby and second career. I work on a contingency basis, meaning I front all expenses. If a runner is developed I receive a share of the profits and recognition.
I am noted for building working models for those who do not have the skills or resources to build for them selves. Submittable designs are received in strict confidence. I cannot discuss them until receiving authorization from the submitter.
The only cloaking here is; I could not talk freely until that authorization was received. It does not refer to anyone other than me.
Ralph
Quote from: wattsup on February 05, 2009, 04:43:53 PM
Actually, position #3 is not the only hold back. There will not be enough rotational momentum to get over that center incline that is supposed to unlatch the ball at position #3. Don't forget that if the wheel can unlatch, that is "work" being done above and beyond the turning aspect and that will be very difficult to achieve.
Also, like I said before, the balls have to be much bigger. The bigger the balls the greater will be the excess at #3. The most difficult part of this type of build will be one of wheel balance that has to be done with all balls held inward or outward at the same position and the incline removed. Only then can the balancing be done. 1 gram of unbalance could kill it right from the start.
I like these ideas because I find them a relaxing change to the regular stuff I do with coil and pulses, etc.
But what I am mostly puzzled about is why all this secrecy in not being able to disclose this or that. Do you really think this device deserves so much cloaking. Do you expect to make millions with such a wheel and why. I don't get it.
wattsup,
These guys really should take the time to learn some engineering first.
When the fuckin weight swings out, it would pull the point it swings from in that direction.
Then, if it is caught and held, it would have noticeably changed it's center of gravity. None of these geniuses have figured that out.
Then after it rotates past bottom center, the weight would hang from it's pivot point. And when it rotates past top center, it can catch a latch to store kinetic potential energy until it could swing outward.
While it's being held in closer until it reaches the #2 position to swing, the weight at #3 and maybe #4 would need to be in an outward position to have an over all net positive effect.
Not sure how people keep missing obvious things like this. More money than brains ?
here we go again, :-\
Quote from: mindsweeper on February 06, 2009, 07:33:20 AM
here we go again, :-\
Nope, just having some fun. Of course, since nobody did spot the obvious, I can expect some people to be upset over missing it. Especially since concerns over legalities were mentioned.
What is a neat trick that you missed is this ; I can now patent this design. This is because I improved it.
Specifically, by having a latch hold the weight until it's swing will help to create an over balance that will be maintained until the weight can swing free when it passes bottom center.
It's a simpler design and one that can work.
So yes, my last post was tongue in cheek up to a point. I would think that someone with Ralph's means would have tested a variation or 2. Had he done this, he might have realized what I did.
What is the "here we go again" is that there is a hierarchy in here that needs to be maintained. Simply put, the status quo has to be supported for no specific reason other than to have people who are considered experts at something they do not understand.
But they are credible ;D
BAHammer,
As per your explanation I ask that you look at the design and consider the weight position, without focusing on the cam and ratchets. You will find the same prime example of a non-runner as depicted in Bessler's drawings MT #1 through 5, 9, 10, and 11. It's commonly called 'Changing height for width.
If you believe you can patent this as a runner, I look forward to obtaining your patent drawings.
Ralph
@rlortie
I had to ask the question and thank you for clearing up the your position. It is kind of crazy to think that someone could actually make a living at building perpetual motion systems, since we have never seen one that worked.
Do you have an estimated cost to build the design in question just out of curiosity.
The perpetual motion wheel will not happen if out of eight sections, only one or two is shifting. For it to have any chance at all, the design has to include the movement of all 8 sectors from one sector to the other. It will be this interaction between the left and right side of the wheel that will result in a perpetual motion design.
If you want to see a very close design that I made and will be redoing soon, you can look here. The main error, balls were not big enough to have enough influence over the total mass. Next wheel will not be in aluminium but in 1" plastic with 1" steel balls.
http://www.purco.qc.ca/ftp/Wattsups'%20stuff/eight-ball-wheel/
Quote from: rlortie on February 06, 2009, 11:39:17 AM
BAHammer,
As per your explanation I ask that you look at the design and consider the weight position, without focusing on the cam and ratchets. You will find the same prime example of a non-runner as depicted in Bessler's drawings MT #1 through 5, 9, 10, and 11. It's commonly called 'Changing height for width.
If you believe you can patent this as a runner, I look forward to obtaining your patent drawings.
Ralph
Ralph,
Later tonight I will modify the posted drawing. I'll also include an explanation.
In this forum, I don't take to much personally. An example of this is I have never told AB Hammer that my grandfather and great grandfather were silver and gold smiths. Plus they owned their own business of which they fabricated any parts needed for boats. This included working with generator/motor combinations. Needless to say, on my dad's side of the family, there are some capable people.
With me, doubt I'll ever meet anyone in this forum. Because of that, I have tried to stay with how a wheel can work. And with Bessler, he designed some of his mechanics to work a certain way. This does not mean that specific design would be capable of running, but it was designed to work a certain way.
Wattsup,
QuoteDo you have an estimated cost to build the design in question just out of curiosity.
It is hard to estimate cost as it depends upon your availablity to find materials. I do a lot of dumpster diving, prowling recycle yards, thrift shops, yard sales etc. If I have to buy something not already in my inventory, I usually head for Ace Hardware, Northern Tool Supply, and McMaster Carr.
I do not calculate or figure in any time and have no need to pay for machining or fabrication.
QuoteThe perpetual motion wheel will not happen if out of eight sections, only one or two is shifting. For it to have any chance at all, the design has to include the movement of all 8 sectors from one sector to the other. It will be this interaction between the left and right side of the wheel that will result in a perpetual motion design.
Once again we have a width for height scenario, one must keep in mind that symmetrical pinned weights always transfer the weight to the pin. I call it 'boot strapping' your attempting to pick yourself up by your on boots. This is where Ab Hammer's gravity grid becomes useful
.
QuoteIf you want to see a very close design that I made and will be redoing soon, you can look here. The main error, balls were not big enough to have enough influence over the total mass. Next wheel will not be in aluminium but in 1" plastic with 1" steel balls.
http://www.purco.qc.ca/ftp/Wattsups'%20stuff/eight-ball-wheel/
Interesting site! and a display of craftsmanship, I will have to spend some free time browsing all your categories. As for your eight ball design, I believe you will find many variations of it. In fact it resembles some recent work that AB hammer has posted. I believe he will agree with me that it does not work and once again it takes you right back to Bessler's first drawings.
Adding more weight is not the answer, and Bessler spoke quite adamantly about those who attempt it. If it will not run, adding larger weights will not help. Rolling balls in cells all experience one thing in common other than not running. You move the weights out on the descent and concentrate them near the axle on the ascent. The weight to leverage ratio always comes out with the concentrated side balancing out or keeling at some point. Thus the term 'height for width'
Ralph
wattsup
I looked at your sight and I saw some very good work there. As per what Ralph is teasing me on a wheel I called, googly eyed. I keep it around for fun any other use is it shows what not to do. LOL
Quote from: rlortie on February 06, 2009, 11:39:17 AM
BAHammer,
As per your explanation I ask that you look at the design and consider the weight position, without focusing on the cam and ratchets. You will find the same prime example of a non-runner as depicted in Bessler's drawings MT #1 through 5, 9, 10, and 11. It's commonly called 'Changing height for width.
If you believe you can patent this as a runner, I look forward to obtaining your patent drawings.
Ralph
Ralph,
You should get an idea from the modifications I made. When the weight passes top center, the current latch design would not hold the weight in place.
By having the latch also be a lever, a line can go from there to another latch/lever combination. It would be one that holds the weight in an over balanced position. Like Mt 20, it would have an over balanced, balanced and under balanced position.
When the weights force on the inner latch is greater than another weights force on it's latch, it would be able to lift the other weigfht a little allowing it to move free from it's latch and swing. This type of arrangement would link 2 weights together so there release points after passing top center can be controlled.
One trick to the design is that the weights can hang from their pivot points after passing near bottom center. The weights would also be able to swing between the supports (arms) that would be on both sides. This would allow the weights to swing onto the inner latch after they pass top center.
This type of set up would need a 6 or 8 weight configuration. This would allow the 2 bottom weights and the top 2 weights to basically cancel each other out. This would leave the weights around the level of the axle that would have a balanced and over balanced position.
And I doubt anyone would consider something like this to be a Bessler Wheel.
edited to change pics and at position 3, that weight would be a little more outward, possibly.
So, I guess 2 & 3 being over balanced could compensate for position 1 being under balanced, or something like that.
Quote from: BAHammer on February 07, 2009, 10:26:23 AM
Ralph,
You should get an idea from the modifications I made. When the weight passes top center, the current latch design would not hold the weight in place.
By having the latch also be a lever, a line can go from there to another latch/lever combination. It would be one that holds the weight in an over balanced position. Like Mt 20, it would have an over balanced, balanced and under balanced position.
When the weights force on the inner latch is greater than another weights force on it's latch, it would be able to lift the other weigfht a little allowing it to move free from it's latch and swing. This type of arrangement would link 2 weights together so there release points after passing top center can be controlled.
One trick to the design is that the weights can hang from their pivot points after passing near bottom center. The weights would also be able to swing between the supports (arms) that would be on both sides. This would allow the weights to swing onto the inner latch after they pass top center.
This type of set up would need a 6 or 8 weight configuration. This would allow the 2 bottom weights and the top 2 weights to basically cancel each other out. This would leave the weights around the level of the axle that would have a balanced and over balanced position.
And I doubt anyone would consider something like this to be a Bessler Wheel.
edited to change pics and at position 3, that weight would be a little more outward, possibly.
So, I guess 2 & 3 being over balanced could compensate for position 1 being under balanced, or something like that.
LMAO ROLMAO You really need to build that Jim/BAHammer LMAO ::) ::) ::)
Yes Alan ;D
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: AB Hammer on February 07, 2009, 12:38:28 PM
LMAO ROLMAO You really need to build that Jim/BAHammer LMAO ::) ::) ::)
@ Alan and Hans,
It would take a while, but I might.
Of course, I thought you would point out the obvious Alan. Everybody knows Bessler said that weights work in pairs. That doesn't happen in this design. I'd say with 8 independent weights, it's moving a lot of dead weight.
This means that every other weight can be removed. This would leave the design with 4 swinging weights.
Then the question becomes, how to move the swinging weights for maximum efficiency ? The simple answer is to use a long lever . Something that would be like a torque wrench.
Of course, the ratio aspect would need to be changed. For this, we'd have to go to "how a grandfather clock works". Basically, have the torque wrench turn one wheel and have a wheel next to that one turning the swinging weight.
Then the swinging weight can be held by a latch when it's over balanced position is attained. What we end up with is "Alex, I'll take what Mt drawing for $1,000.00". And the answer is "what is Mt 20".
I don't think this is really fair Alan. I mean really, I take time to consider what Bessler said and what principles he used. Of course, i also know mechanics and how grandfather clocks work :-)
By the way, with this configuration, if the wheel were to be pushed in the opposite direction, it would work the same way. The difference would be it would rely on an under balance instead of over balance.
Just as his clue states next to the drawing. In reality, it's being hitched on one side depends on which way it is rotating. Why ? Because how the lever is connected to the wheel it acts on doesn't change !!!
But will I build it ? No, this won't happen. I have my own personal responsibilities to take care of.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;
position 1and 2
free fall --> negative torque
I've attached a WM2D file made by importing a DXF of all the elements needed (I think) to simulate Lindemann's concept. It tried to stay as true to his drawings as possible by scaling the drawing on page 5 of his document and drawing in AutoCAD. This was then polar arrayed 8 times to complete the entire assembly with identical pieces at precise locations. I took some liberty with the design of the cam profile and engineered the ratchet to my liking. The entire drawing was scaled so that the wheel would be 10 ft. in diameter, since this was one of the sizes supposedly demoed by Bessler.
Please let me know if anyone would like the models modified in anyway. I have only played with WM2D a very short amount of time and do not know if these models are the easiest or even are complete enough to simulate the concept.
Thanks,
M.
Whoops. Just noticed the ratchet DXF did not translate properly into WM2D. I modified and have attached the updated file.
Well here is what I was able to simulate. I had to remove the spring mechanisms that bounce the pendulums back from the outer rim of the wheel. Too many objects for WM2D I think. I replaced them with just the plunger part of the spring mechanism with an elasticity of 1.0, so an idealized spring, basically. Not as neat to watch, but effective enough I think. I also added a falling mass to start the wheel spinning. It functions as Lindemann described as it is started at an appropriate RPM (and yes the pendulums swing, bounce, and catch back on the ratchet), but quickly slows once the initial swinging pendulums reach the point on the other side where they want to reset inwards. Then she stops rather quickly.
I've idealized many masses and frictions towards zero but don't think there is much more to try. Let me know if anyone has ideas to try.
Thanks,
M.
This is daum.
Daum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Daum.net (January 11, 2009)Daum (Korean: 다ìŒ; KRX: 035720) is a popular web portal in South Korea, with its rival Naver. Daum offers many Internet services to web users, including a popular free web-based e-mail, messaging service, forums, shopping and news.
The popularity of Daum is a reflection of the high level of internet use in South Korea. The country has the highest level of broadband users, and one of the most widespread levels of computer and Internet access.
There is no way in hell a falling weight on a wheel can lift the same weight on the up side and some how add energy to the system.
Brian,
That is a lot like saying your tank scheme will not work because I said so, or CoE says so, or TK and Hans say so. Not much useful information in those statements. But for those who want to learn I have offered this simulation that shows how some equations predict this system will perform. It confirms the ideas of some and refutes those of others as to how the mechanism might or might not work. But sadly it does not prove an OU Bessler type wheel of this particular design might work. Not that it entirely rules it out either. It does, however, show a failure (to run) mode that was different than I was expecting. And so I share that information with others who might also be interested in learning this. I believe that is the spirit of these forums.
M.
Put a weight on a wheel any where you want, and than try to make it spin. It will not.
I can criticize what I do not understand.
Quote from: brian334 on February 10, 2009, 03:31:18 PM
There is no way in hell a falling weight on a wheel can lift the same weight on the up side and some how add energy to the system.
The sanest person ;)
I used to think other wise, but have been taught by the experts and builders that it is not possible.
The larger the mass of the big wheel, the slower it accelerates and no surplus energy to re-raise the attached smaller weight.
It can be stopped very easily.
Quote from: mondrasek on February 10, 2009, 03:42:49 PM
Brian,
That is a lot like saying your tank scheme will not work because I said so, or CoE says so, or TK and Hans say so. Not much useful information in those statements. But for those who want to learn I have offered this simulation that shows how some equations predict this system will perform. It confirms the ideas of some and refutes those of others as to how the mechanism might or might not work. But sadly it does not prove an OU Bessler type wheel of this particular design might work. Not that it entirely rules it out either. It does, however, show a failure (to run) mode that was different than I was expecting. And so I share that information with others who might also be interested in learning this. I believe that is the spirit of these forums.
M.
Mondrasek,
The spirit of these forums it seems to be to claim to know what you don't understand. After all, this type of engineering is not linear in concept.
Just like the swinging weight, in what direction is it pulling on the point it is rotating from ? It is the direction that would facilitate the rotation of the wheel ? For the most part, the answer would be no.
With Mt 20, having a falling weight extending another falling weight goes against accepted engineering practices. Thus, experience in traditional engineering would not support this type of reasoning.
Here is something you could try if you like.
The diagrams should help you to understand the basic idea. I do believe that with Bessler's drawing, that everyone thinks on a clockwise rotation that the weight rotates over the top ( clockwise). It does not. It rotates counter clockwise.
There is a good reason for the weight to have a stop after it has rotated as much as possible. it's another neat trick of engineering Bessler would have figured out. Then again, in his time, people explored how things worked. Today, we know how they work. This leaves us nothing left to learn :)
And since Bessler is also supposed to have been a clock maker
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/clocks-watches/clock4.htm
This would have to do with using leverage to move an arm outward while using little motion. Another neat trick.
edited to add; Of course, we do know that Bessler really didn't build a working wheel becasue ou is impossible ;)
BAHammer,
It appears that you are under the mistaken impression that I believed this concept would work. I never was. I was intrigued with how the system would act, and yes, I debated that with some of the other forum members. For my part that debate was centered around how a pendulum would act while oscillating in a rotating reference frame. I was not able to visualize how such a system would act and took issue with how some others prescribed it would. I believed that the system could be best viewed in a simple 2D simulation and asked if others were able to create one. I also offered and received assistance in modeling and obtaining simulation capabilities through PM conversations with helpful members. Ultimately I took it upon myself to create models and a simulation so that all could learn exactly how this type of system is predicted to perform. This was in the spirit of helping myself and others learn something. Not as an advocate of this design or any other. I do this type of debunking activity as a mental challenge for myself as well as to help others to understand concepts that they cannot visualize or properly grasp. Much like I tried to help Brian to understand the issues with his buoyancy concept.
My point to Brian is that making statements like "This is daum", or "There is no way in hell this will work", does not offer any useful information. And further, I might add that it is not *constructive* criticism. It has no purpose but to insult and/or antagonize others and is therefore juvenile. Much like changing/creating a new user name to mock another user?
Thanks,
M.
Well said Mondrasek!
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: mondrasek on February 11, 2009, 12:22:40 PM
BA Hammer,
It appears that you are under the mistaken impression that I believed this concept would work. I never was. I was intrigued with how the system would act, and yes, I debated that with some of the other forum members. For my part that debate was centered around how a pendulum would act while oscillating in a rotating reference frame. I was not able to visualize how such a system would act and took issue with how some others prescribed it would. I believed that the system could be best viewed in a simple 2D simulation and asked if others were able to create one. I also offered and received assistance in modeling and obtaining simulation capabilities through PM conversations with helpful members. Ultimately I took it upon myself to create models and a simulation so that all could learn exactly how this type of system is predicted to perform. This was in the spirit of helping myself and others learn something. Not as an advocate of this design or any other. I do this type of debunking activity as a mental challenge for myself as well as to help others to understand concepts that they cannot visualize or properly grasp. Much like I tried to help Brian to understand the issues with his buoyancy concept.
My point to Brian is that making statements like "This is dam", or "There is no way in hell this will work", does not offer any useful information. And further, I might add that it is not *constructive* criticism. It has no purpose but to insult and/or antagonize others and is therefore juvenile. Much like changing/creating a new user name to mock another user?
Thanks,
M.
>> For my part that debate was centered around how a pendulum would act while oscillating in a rotating reference frame.<<
You did say the fulcrum would be moving downward and the pendulum would oscilate. It's oscilation would suffer entropy in proportion to the downward movement of it's fulcrum. The same would occur with the lifting of the fulcrum.
Simply put, the rotation of the wheel would only increase the entropy suffered by the pendulum.
Hans, I do apologize for understanding basic relationships such as this.
edited to add;
Hans,
consider this, if the pendulum accelerates at 9.8m/s/s and the fulcrum is moving downward @ v, then the force acting on the weight is 9.8m/s/s-v = ?
On the upward movement, it would be 9.8m/s/s - the distance the fuclrum moves upward.
This would give gravity less time to accelerate the pendulum.
On it's downward movement, it's force would be reduced by the downward movement of the fulcrum. When the fulcrum would start moving across the bottom of the wheel, this would elongate the swing of the pendulum decreasing it's ability to act on it's fulcrum with more force. Distance times mass = work. When force is spread out over a distance, it like wise reduces the force of which the weight can act on the fulrum to help rotate the wheel.
Like I said, I do apologize for understanding this. Do you think I should look for a forum where basic behaviors like this are already understood ?
Of course, it could be that it is difficult to understand me if what I discuss is to advanced. And I think that is the problem.
I hope you enjoy your discussions. Good Bye :)
Good bye Jim,
Until another time, another pseudonym.
Ralph
He does seem to like his pissing competitions Ralph. ;D ;D ;D
Hans
Quote from: hansvonlieven on February 11, 2009, 10:11:16 PM
He does seem to like his pissing competitions Ralph. ;D ;D ;D
Hans
Hans,
There is nothing pissing about it. If you read the thread G-Force, it was a discussion except for Alan. but that was okay.
It is sad that the experts in this forum can not consider that 2 weights being suspended from one axis on one side of a wheel can generate more force than one weight being suspended from an axis on the other side of the wheel.
I guess it is something that is to simple for you guys to grasp. And that is why it would be a pissing contest. you guys aren't the ones thinking of things liek this so have to be antagonistic ;D
Jim I am posting the picture of what you posted on.
Re: G-Force
« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2009, 08:29:07 PM »
Note the Blue, Purple, and Red lines
Then note and add the distance of each collard lines from the center to each end. Are these magic lines for they will not move anything in those arrangements. And you wonder why I say it won't work the way you have drawn it? ::) ::) ::)
Quote from: AB Hammer on February 12, 2009, 10:43:41 AM
Jim I am posting the picture of what you posted on.
Re: G-Force
« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2009, 08:29:07 PM »
Note the Blue, Purple, and Red lines
Then note and add the distance of each collard lines from the center to each end. Are these magic lines for they will not move anything in those arrangements. And you wonder why I say it won't work the way you have drawn it? ::) ::) ::)
Alan,
You didn't post how I said the lines ran. I did say that they could be tried in different configurations.
I at no time said thatwas the definitive way. It was open to discussion.
You did post that you and Ralph disproved it with your Keel Effect. Since you do not know the difference of the weight on the long lever and the iron rod, you can't make that statement.
If you cut and paste the weight that rotates on Mt 20, one on the left side is hanging down, put it on the right side of Mt24. This would suggest that Bessler drew the drawing so a person would have to consider where the iron rod might be. If it is the same as Mt 20, it would be one that could hang down on one side of the wheel and then rotate and lay on the arm on it's way up. Later tonight, i will do the cut and paste to show you what I am talking about.
Also, the way this pic is drawn, it's being able to work would depend on how long the rod is on the swinging weight and the distance the long lever can travel radially. Again, those things would need to be known before being able to make a definitive statement about whether or not it could work that way. But with me, I am not sure what is wrong with considering different ways.
Quote from: rlortie on February 11, 2009, 05:29:02 PM
Good bye Jim,
Until another time, another pseudonym.
Ralph
Ralph,
only reason I quit using p-motion was Alan did not like me posting with other people. This was an attempt to discourage him. But he is your friend.
OBSERVATION:
The lack of a good moderator sure does surface on overunity.com
Why must people bicker so much..
Quote from: mindsweeper on February 12, 2009, 03:48:54 PM
OBSERVATION:
The lack of a good moderator sure does surface on overunity.com
Why must people bicker so much..
Good point MS.
Myself, I think what is going on with Alan and me is that he is working on Mt 24. Some of the things he has posted suggests this. Just as he brought Mt 24 into this thread. There could be something he wanted me to clarify. He has posted that I will need to learn to dance for the public. And it could be why in the G-Force thread he was busy saying he had proven it won't work. That is because he was/is working on it and did not want someone else working on it.
This would go to, why not work cooperatively in an open forum ? And the basic reason would be that some people want the attention most of all for "discovering" perpetual motion.
And yet, if they had put years into studying math, science among other things, they would have a bit more respect for how difficult it is.
Later tonite, I might post clearly the most likely way Mt 24 worked to help Alan.
Alan,
in case you are working on Mt 24 and other Bessler drawings, could be wrong.
The first drawing with the red lines going to 2 different weights could be Bessler's first wheels of this type.
This would mean that the over balanced weight would be rotated at least 45 degrees aftyer 45 degrees from bottom center. this would mean it would be leaning in towards the center of the wheel. And without bearings ( he had none ), the wheel would have rotated slowly allowing the weight to fall against the arm.
The second drawing is Mt 20. it shows which weight that can rotate to Mt 24.
The third drawing shows on Mt 24 where i moved it to show he could use similar mechanics in different drawings.
edited to add; The first attempt might have had 2 opposing ( 180 degrees apart ) weights with a line attaching them. This would cancel out centrifugal force as both weights and rods would be at 45 degrees to the force of gravity.
The second, with a weight at 45 dergees, it might have had more stored potential kinetic energy. In simpler terms, once it could swing down, it might have shifted quicker.
And with this, at 90 degrees. bessler might have found out that it was easier and simpler to have 2 weights shifting at the same time with the same cf acting on both of them.
Because the line would be closer to center than the weights, this would mean that both weights would cancel out their respective cf because it would be the same on all weights with the same rod/weight relationship.
As he went along, he would have refined his design based on what he learned from his other working models.
Of course, with Mt 20, the lever is inverted ( backwards ). Even a dog would tire of doing the same trick. He was a little bit smarter.
edited to add; with 2 arms at 45 degrees to the axle, the weights on rods would also be at 45 degrees to the force of gravity.
With the levers, the opposing lever helps to act as a counter balance. The shift in the 2 main weights creates more of a shift in balance as they are heavier than the lighter weights on the levers.
And in all, there might be 3 different configurations that would allow Mt 24 to work.
Had to run spell check ;D
Alan,
If I have to venture a guess, I'd go with 135 degrees. The reason for this is when the weight that needs to move to it's starting position would be at 45 degrees after bottom center. The first drawing with red lines. The red line that does not go straight across. If you look at Bessler's pic, the weight and arm does not rotate out to 90 degrees. This would mean that the weight hanging from the arm could be rotating some before it reaches the level of the axle. It would have the help of the long lever and it's weight.
it's a guess, this means I could be wrong.
Alan,
The red line is the rod and weight before the shift going with a 90 degree action between weights and rods.
The blue is the long lever and weight and the green is the line attaching them. You should get the idea.
Hard to say what Bessler actually knew or thought since he didn't leave a manuscript detailing how he went about his work. Needless to say, it's a real beotch trying to understand how someone developed an idea 300 yeaqrs ago.
edited to add;
Alan,
the shorter the rotating rods with weights, the less the long levers will need to move to shift the weights on short rods.
this will allow for a quicker shift and less imbalance caused bya long lever rotating radially to much.
Good Luck :)
WOW Jim
You assume to much. :o I have no need of help in most cases until I need someone to put it into proper physics math format. And I have several people for that. We don't talk the same language for some reason I guess. I am a very hand on type of guy. I explain experience and you explain math. I pay close attention to detail of movement and reaction. For there is where the answer will be found. You keep saying that I am working on MT24. I have played with it along with MT25 and other MT's and what I see is totally different than what you see. You are looking at your math and I am looking at reactions. All of my experience shows me that there is a denominator missing in all wheel configurations. That denominator will be found only by observation and physical experience. IMO When I tell you something won't work. That means I have most likely tried it or something similar. Just quit reading so much into what I say and just look at what I say only.
I will say that what you just laid out, is the most I have ever saw you lay out. That is what I have been talking about for you to get your point across. Very few know how to talk math as a second language.
I didn't notice the animated video of Lindemann Mechanical Engine was mentioned during this discussion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GY0oz0iTiI
Quote from: Merg on March 10, 2009, 11:15:40 PM
I didn't notice the animated video of Lindemann Mechanical Engine was mentioned during this discussion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GY0oz0iTiI
Merg; It is a shame it does not work.
I designed something like this once (some of you will remember) and I learnt that the pendulums swing will be "killed" because the pivot moves in the same direction as the swing and even if the pendulums did make it, it still would not turn for this reason:
Even though the weights take outer positions, the "wheel is required to turn" in order for the "weights to take an outward position" so the question is, whats powering the wheel in order for it to move the weights? the answer is Nothing!
So here with have a wheel not only trying to "move itself", but also trying to "move the weights" too!!!! Well thats not going to work...
This IMHO is the reason why all of these wheels are "Non Runners", It should be the "weights themselves" that "move the wheel", not the opposite way around...
(These are only my own thoughts on the matter and not to be used as a doctrine)
Alex