Hello All,
I am starting this thread for those who are interested in recreating Besslers wheel. We can begin by collecting all of the available information on the descriptions of the wheel.
Then we will decide which information is more credible than other information.
If Bessler said it, it obviously would bear more weight, than lets say a newspaper article.
1) We know it was in the shape of a wheel.
2) We know 8 weights per revolution were heard.
3) We know the weights are controlled by levers hooked to the perimeter.
4) We know springs were involved. Many people of the time thought his device had a main spring and would stop turning after a couple weeks. Bessler said he was using springs but not it the way people thought.
One witness said Bessler pushed down on what appeared to be a lever and heard the sound of a spring when Bessler let go while installing the weight.
5) We know there was a rotating disc which Bessler called the key to his device. Also known as the low drum or grindstone.
6) We know there were strings according to Count Karl.
7) We know the perimeter is what lifts the weights. Lets call this the high drum. According to Bessler.
8) We know he built his wheel in layers.
Now when we dig a little deeper and visualize the children playing on broken columns as Bessler describes it, we know the children do not lift the weights. And because the high drum lifts the weights, I can and do draw the conclusion that the low drum serves the same function as the children.
Which is not to lift the weight but to SHIFT the weight closer to the column.
The axle is the top of the column.
Now with this deduction we can discover the actual length of the levers, or eliminate those lengths which do not apply.
Now using a mental experiement lets take the lever length to the extreme's.
According to Bessler if you looked at the levers going over the columns it is like the children are rolling the levers over the columns.
Now lets make the lever 1 inch long. The weight cannot reach the axle which would not give the appearance of the lever rolling over the column.
Now lets make the lever the diameter of the wheel. It would be so long the weight could not move because the side of the lever would be touching the axle at all times.
Now lets reduce the extreme, we have one of 3 choices, a lever shorter than the radius of the wheel, one as long as the radius of the wheel, and one longer than the radius of the wheel. It is readily apparent that shorter than the radius has the same problem as the 1 inch lever.
So we are left with the same as the radius of the wheel or longer than the radius. If the lever is the same as the radius of the wheel the lever doesn't hit the axle but the weight would. Which in my opinion eliminates this also, because it would not look like the lever is rolling over the column. So we are left with one conclusion, the lever must exceed the radius of the wheel. This would also create a fulcrum on the axle when the weight reaches 9:00. Because the pivot point is on the opposite side of the axle, around 1:00 or 2:00
A FULCRUM!!!! Harnessing energy once the wheel is in motion!!!
Critical thinking is such a wonderful thing.
How many people are lost now? :D
Next entry will be the spring attachment.
Feel free to add any information on the wheel. Be sure to include the source of the information.
Don't forget the three criteria
1) you must harness the power of gravity
2) you must store potential energy to be released at the specific time.
3) you must take full advantage of the kinetic energy once the wheel is in motion.
Ken,
Weights may have been attached to movable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel.
- Johann Christian Wolff, eyewitness account
Is this the clue that you are referring to when you stated:
) We know the weights are controlled by levers hooked to the perimeter.
Thanks
overtaker,
Yes that account along with something Bessler said. I can't recall which writing I was reading. I came to the conclusion that the attachment of the levers was on the perimeter of the wheel.
Thanks Ken. Also from the Apologia Poetica:
A wheel appears - is it really a wheel, for it does not have a normal rim.
It revolves, but without other wheels inside or outside,
and without weights, wind, or springs.
Do you believe the inner drum you refer to would be considered an inside wheel?
Do you think your design will work without weights or springs?
Thanks again.
greetings ken!
you do seem to have a collection of data on mr. Bessler, but what i don't understand is why people are so obsessed with him. if you figured something out that is promising, i would much rather like to hear about that, because think about it, no one knows what he actually had, and no one will ever know for sure. so if you do figure out a way to get it to work, take credit for it man, Bessler didn't do anything but point you in a direction, you found it on your own
one must first assume a gravity wheel is possible, secondly that Bessler actually did it, and thirdly that he never lied one time, or changed his device over the course of all his discriptions
but mr bessler is not here to defend himself, all well
in the mean time however, i would very much like to see a drawing possibly of your theory, or what you might think he did, if just to illustrate a few of your points, maybe clear the light for a few in the dark
hope to hear from you soon
Mr. Bojangles, If Bessler was the one of the few that ever accomplished the task of building a working gravity wheel than I'm all ears! If you can solve this without his clues, more power to you. I for one will stick to his clues like glue, read between the lines and try not to stretch his words too much just to fit my designs. I am also a stickler for the truth. When someone ( Jim comes to mind ) states Bessler said this or that, I want to make sure that is exactly what he said. I think we would have to be fools to ignore Bessler's clues. JMHO
overtaker,
I believe that Bessler was speaking of a clock movement when referring to those things. Like in a grandfather clock, it has weights, springs and you have to wind it.
I believe that was a red herring if you will.
overtaker,
I agree it would take the heart of a fool to ignore what Bessler said.
Ken, Off topic. If you need some Tile advice for the home you are building, I would recommend Johnbridge.com. There are far too many hacks out there in some states. Their forum is excellent.
Now lets discuss the levers and springs.
The radius of the running wheel or high drum plus the radius of the weight is the MINIMUM lever length. This will ensure that the axle can be used as a fulcrum.
The weight cannot connect to the end of the lever in a fixed manner. If we do this we will be wasting kinetic energy.
The weight must be in some sort of slot to allow it to move once the lever hits its stop on the perimeter of the wheel. Bessler has in one of his MT drawings a lever with an open ended slot. This would suffice.
Now that we have let the weight go free at the end of the stroke of the lever, it has tremendous energy because of the speed it is traveling just before it hits the anvil, or curved piece of wood described by an eyewitness. The curve of the wood would be able to cause the direction of force from the weight to be changed to a perpendicular angle.
We will talk more about the weight later.
Now the spring. How long should it be?
Lets do a mental experiment. 1 inch long spring. would not work because the travel of the lever is more than one inch.
Other extreme, a spring as long as the lever.
No reason this would not work. In fact it would cause less wear on the spring if it were as long as possible. The location of the end of the springs must not interfere with the rotating disc in the center of the device, yet remain as long as possible.
So if we attach one end of the spring to the lever, the same distance from the center of the axle that the center of the weight is, when closest to the axle, but on the opposite side of the axle, and the other end of the spring near the pivot point on the perimeter of the wheel it would not interfere with anything else.
Now if we use a cable or string attached directly to the pin going through the weight, The pin guides the weight in the slot of the lever.
We must connect the other end to the corresponding weight on the opposite side.
This transfers the kinetic energy that was created by the momentum of the weight to help shift the opposite weight. This momentum is created by the stored energy in the spring that was harnessed by the low drum.
If you have a weight of 5 pounds, then the spring tension while the weight is on the perimeter should be about 5 pounds. However once the weight is shifted to the axle, the spring is stretched, to maybe 10 pounds of force.
When this stored energy is released, the weight will have more than enough energy to reach the perimeter. Any excess will be transferred to the opposite weight and to the task of shifting it to the axle.
Well time for a break.
"Happiness comes from caring for something outside of self."
overtaker,
Thanks for the tile tip, but I have laid my share of tile in my day.
I might go look anyway to see if there are any new products easier to use, that have been developed since I did any tile work.
Mental break. HAHA
Ken said:
Now that we have let the weight go free at the end of the stroke of the lever,
Ken, this actually fits the clue from the Apologia Poetica :
a large herd of fat, lazy,
plump horses wanders aimlessly.
The aimlessly part could imply the weights don't follow a direct path. My 2 cents.
overtaker
I do not know if I would use the term aimlessly to describe the weights in the slots. they are aimed at the anvil. I believe that particular statement might refer to the look of all the weights once the wheel is in motion. That's my opinion.
Yea, I think this clue is one that we will never know his true meaning even after a runner is produced.
I've heard it mentioned before that weights traveling in a circle would be considered aimlessly.
Ken, In your design, do you lift 4 lbs. four quarters high as 1 lb. drops one quarter?
My favourite clue by the way.
Now concerning the use of ALL kinetic energy available we in fact are ignoring the lost energy by the lever hitting its stop.
This is NOT acceptable. When we look at the orientation of the cable from one weight to the opposite weight we soon discover that the axle is directly in the way. So the energy from the cable has to change directions which is a loss. This is NOT acceptable.
So what we do is hook the cable from the pin on the weight to the opposite lever where the spring is connected, and the corresponding weight is then hooked to its opposite lever spring location. By doing this we do 2 things, we straighten the cable and lose nothing from a direction change, and we use ALL of the energy from the lever AND the weight.
One can adjust this easily by shortening and lengthening the cable to its optimum length. But it doesn't stop there. Because if we think, the lever can't shift the weight, the inertia isn't even close to being enough.
So what we do is interconnect both cables to act as one unit. There are several ways to do this. Tie a separate cable to the weight and the other end to the opposite cable before the axle, and add the same cable on the opposite side. And do the same from the point of attachment of the spring. Run a separate cable to the opposite cable and connect it prior to the axle. This would keep the transfer of energy in a straight line. As much as is possible.
Am I making too much sense?:D
Now there is no kinetic energy that has not been harnessed from the weights and the levers. All that is left is the low drum.
I will leave that for next time.
Whats the difference between Santa Claus and Tiger Woods?
Santa stops at 3 Ho's
:D
overtaker,
I must have missed that clue. Is that word for word?
Ken, This is from the Apologia Poetica:
"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain." - pg 295
Here is another translation:
From chapter 43 of AP:
He will be called a great craftsman,
who can easily throw a heavy thing high,
and when one pound falls a quarter,
it shoots four pounds four quarters high. &c.
I believe this is Stewart's translation but I'm not sure.
overtaker,
That's a great clue. Now lets evaluate what is being said in the clue.
When a one pound weight falls a quarter a 4 pound weight rises 4 quarters.
Now most people I believe would assume these weights are interconnected.
But lets look closer, Is it possible that the one pound weight is what triggers the release of the spring?
I say yes. So the distance the 4 pound weight moves would be approximately the radius of the wheel, so the 1 pound weight would have to move 1/4 that distance to trigger the release of the 4 pound weight.
I see no way possible for a 1 pound weight to contain enough energy to move a 4 pound weight 4 times the distance of the one pound weight. Therefore my conclusion is the 4 pound weight must have potential energy stored in order to accomplish this. And the one pound weight is simply the trigger.
If the distance the 1 pound weight moved were increased to exceed the movement of the 4 pound weight, then and only then would enough energy be available to move the 4 pound weight as described.
A one pound weight that can only move 1 foot, will NEVER lift a 4 pound weight 4 feet, unless potential energy is stored somewhere in the system.
We can try to store potential energy in the one pound weight to transfer to the 4 pound weight, which would include a power loss, or store the potential energy directly in the 4 pound weight, with no power loss from the transfer.
Use the 1 pound weight to trigger the release of the potential energy, and the 4 pound weight will fly upwards.
Count Karl stated that the way the weights were prevented from taking their normal path on the ascending side was the key. When we combine this with Bessler stating that the low drum was the key. (paraphrasing of course) We can come to the conclusion that the low drum must contain the one pound weight that triggers the release.
If the one pound weight was actually lifting the 4 pound weight, then Besslers claim that the children on the columns could not lift the levers I don't believe would fit. Also Bessler himself said the high drum is what lifts the weights. I believe he was referring to the 8 larger weights.
Count Karl said a peg held the weight until its zenith, then rotated out of the way. I would have to say the one pound weight caused this rotation of the peg.
But I also do not believe that an exact duplicate of the device that shifts and holds the weights to the axle is needed to make a working wheel. In my opinion once you understand the placement of the levers, weights and cables, finding a solution to hold the weights and release them would be much easier.
Next segment will be the low drum, or rotating disc that bessler spoke of.
"If you think you can't, you surely won't be able to. If you think you can, the journey of success can begin."
Now lets take a look at the low drum, or grindstone, or rotating disc. Besslers uses all three terms to describe this piece.
If the disc rotates on the axle, and the axle is spinning from the wheel rotating, then simple deduction would indicate the disc is not moving.
When we add in the friction of the bearings and the ascending weights applying pressure to the disc, at different intervals. We can come to the conclusion that the disc is not actually stationary, but in fact oscillates.
Raising slightly and then returning to its original position, and repeating this motion. Kind of like a dog wagging its tail.
If the device used to push the weights to the axle on the ascending side is stationary, the device WILL NOT WORK!
The oscillation is needed for more than one reason. One of which is a reduction in the force needed to shift the weight the further the wheel rotates.
For instance lets say our weight is 5 pounds. At the 6:00 position you must do 2 things, lift almost the entire 5 pounds AND overcome the 5 pound spring. the pivot point of the lever would be about 9:00.
As the disc rotates clockwise from the force of the mentioned above, the pivot point on the lever starts to become oriented directly above the weight. Now as this starts to occur, it takes less force to shift the weight. The more the disc rotates the less force is needed to shift the weight. until a point is reached where the only force needed is to overcome the spring.
Because of the floating factor of the disc, almost no energy is wasted.
The energy that is transferred to the disc, to rotate it, is returned to the weight once the disc returns to its position. If the disc were stationary there would be massive power loss. But gravity working on the disc returns the power to the weight, to shift it.
So in fact we are storing energy in the rotating disc until the lever is in the correct position with the pivot point above the weight, and not beside it.
Then the stored energy in the disc is more than the resistance left in the spring and weight combined, gravity transfers the energy back to the weight to shift it to the axle. AGAIN Harnessing ALL of the available power.
Again a stationary disc would cause a massive power loss.
Critical thinking , such a wonderful thing. :D
Now we have over 90% of the design.
The only thing left is to create the low drum in such a way that it will shift the weights and release them at the correct time. One disc per 2 weights, then layer the drum for all 8 weights.
This is way too easy. Give me a harder problem. :D
Well time to fix some breakfast.
Ken the Great,
you seem to have a brilliant analytical mind.
With words sometimes it can be difficult to visualise what you are describing, so if you could make a basic sketch that would help a lot so that as you continue your explanation we can understand it better and contribute.
Thanks
Damian
Dr What,
I appreciate the interest in this thread.
I do not have the time to draw anything up right now, I had a few extra minutes last night and here and there, to post to the thread.
However if you are interested I will keep you in mind.
Do you live in the US? Where about? The general area.
Send me a personal message do not answer these in the forum, if you live close enough, maybe we can collaborate in building this thing.
I am in the process of assembling a parts list to send to a machine shop, for the axle, flanges, bearings and weights.
Later :D
"Why is it that the women who are against abortion are the women you wouldn't want to have S E X with in the first place?" :D
Hello all who have been reading,
We are now in the last phase of the design. The low drum.
Lets ask ourselves what needs to happen before we decide how to approach this.
1) The weight needs to be shifted to the axle.
2) The weight needs to be reset in the slot in the end of the lever so it is closest to the pivot point.
3) We must apply force to the weight and not the lever, in order to achieve number 2.
4) The pressure applied to the weight must be balanced. We cannot apply force to one side of the weight. this will cause a torque effect on the lever and premature failure, along with possible binding issues.
Now in order to achieve this the low drum must have a left and a right half which are mirror images of each other. these are assembled allowing room between for the lever and the weight to ride.
Now from this point on, any number of designs will work, as long as the 4 things listed are followed. We can use a pendulum type design, with a small weight. You can use no weights.
Well I am out of time.
“Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes."
Quote from: Ken the Great on January 06, 2010, 10:52:30 AM
This is way too easy. Give me a harder problem. :D
i got one for you... build and demonstrate a working bessler wheel. ;)
Willy, I am making a parts list currently. Seems people are way too busy. If you are near me in the US, and have mechanical skills and a place to work.
Maybe you will be the builder.
:D
"The average woman would rather have beauty than brains, because the average man can see better than he can think."
Quote from: Ken the Great on January 06, 2010, 08:08:05 PM
Willy, I am making a parts list currently. Seems people are way too busy. If you are near me in the US, and have mechanical skills and a place to work.
Maybe you will be the builder.
:D
"The average woman would rather have beauty than brains, because the average man can see better than he can think."
i'm in the US, i have mechanical skills and a place to build... but i'm not into exercises in futility so i won't be your builder. it was you who wanted the 'harder problem' not i, so i gave you one. i trust it's not too hard for your genius... ;)
Willy,
Building the wheel will be very easy, and it will run, it can't help but run.
I have looked at a lot of designs and have not found one yet that will work except for my design.
I lack time, but I am moving forward.
For some reason, I have severe doubt when I read your post. That is interesting.
Well I have something that needs tending to.
"Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings." :D
Quote from: Ken the Great on January 06, 2010, 08:24:49 PM
Willy,
Building the wheel will be very easy, and it will run, it can't help but run.
I have looked at a lot of designs and have not found one yet that will work except for my design.
I lack time, but I am moving forward.
For some reason, I have severe doubt when I read your post. That is interesting.
Well I have something that needs tending to.
"Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings." :D
LOL...
ok, you say it will run, it can't help but run... only
your design will run. that's all nice and wonderful but those are merely your opinions and that doesn't pass muster... prove it, demonstrate a working bessler wheel.
when it doesn't run what will you tell us?
and for some reason, i have severe doubts when i read your posts... ;)
Willy go through the drawings bessler drew and tell me why each design won't work.
That would be a place to start, I have already gone through them and none of them will work. I did not need to build them to KNOW this.
I am now having second thoughts of posting anymore information on here.
Seems this site is full of people who fancy themselves engineers and having mechanical ability, But in fact show NOTHING in any posts to prove anything of the sort. What I read is M=mc2, and wasting energy is a good thing. Things of this sort.
Seems like a pattern is emerging. Explain to me why the design I have posted so far will not work.
If you can't then that answers ALL the questions I need answered.
:D
Quote from: Ken the Great on January 06, 2010, 08:45:44 PM
Willy go through the drawings bessler drew and tell me why each design won't work.
That would be a place to start, I have already gone through them and none of them will work. I did not need to build them to KNOW this.
I am now having second thoughts of posting anymore information on here.
Seems this site is full of people who fancy themselves engineers and having mechanical ability, But in fact show NOTHING in any posts to prove anything of the sort. What I read is M=mc2, and wasting energy is a good thing. Things of this sort.
Seems like a pattern is emerging. Explain to me why the design I have posted so far will not work.
If you can't then that answers ALL the questions I need answered.
:D
i think not. i already told you my stance on exercises in futility...
correct, none of them will, including yours. i don't need to build yours to know this.
how does one demonstrate mechanical ability in a written post??? ::)
indeed a patern does exist... explain to you?? read a physics book...
explain to me why for the couple hundred years since bessler noone has demonstrated a working wheel... if you can't then that answers all the questions i need answered.
Ken, I would recommend the team with Ralph, Alan and James for your build. I am not interested in building it for you or seeing the blueprints because I intend to take the patent route. I am very confident in my design also. I will not speak for Ralph but he may also not want to invest his time helping with an open source build. He has too much time and money invested allready not to be rewarded for his work.
Good luck. I'm sure I will have more clue questions for you as this progresses.
Wilby. wrote:
explain to me why for the couple hundred years since bessler no one has demonstrated a working wheel... if you can't then that answers all the questions i need answered.
Actually there are two wheels that apparently worked since. The Asa Jackson wheel and the Buzzsaw wheel.
Bessler offered his head if his wheel wasn't as he said.
Would you offer your head if someone builds a working gravity wheel?
Just as I thought. No knowledge just hot air.
Post something that will demonstrate your understanding of simple principles.
I have posted more than enough post to demonstrate I have a working knowledge of physics and formulas used in that physics book you have never seen. You however have posted nothing. LOL
So you are in the same box as the person who said wasted energy is a good thing.
And until you post a coherent post that deals with actual physics and the principles thereof you cannot escape the box. Sorry, no get out of box free cards.
HAHAHA
And by the way, you aren't smarter than a fifth grader. :D
"I am the rottweiler, you are the chew toy."
overtaker,
I have already sent a few rough sketches to Ralph and Alan. Alan asked, I sent them to him. What a novel approach.
However, I am told they won't be able to get to it for quite some time. So I am also going to try and build this in the few minutes here and there that I do have. I am making a parts list with detailed drawings to send to get machined.
Are you familiar with the patent process? I myself have never dealt with the patent office.
Well nature calls.
"You can never get enough of what you don't need to make you happy." :D
Ken asked:
Are you familiar with the patent process? I myself have never dealt with the patent office.
Yes and no. I have a patent att. that files Provisional patent applications for a flat fee of $500.00 . Along with that is the Gov. fee of $120.00 +or- . The provisional patent must be detailed enough for someone in the trade to build. The Provisional Patent app. gives you your place in line but you must file your regular patent app. within 12 months. Of course to do the rest of the patent work he charges $350.00 an hour. There is an excellent book, Patent it yourself by David Pressman. If you open source I will respect your decision , if you patent I will also respect it.
overtaker,
I might do both. I do need to find a better place to share information though, this forum I do not think is the right place. I am not worried about selling the idea as much as I am helping the less fortunate.
However I am starting to think I need to give people an emotional stability test before I share, HAHAHAHAHA
I may have to just start my own website. Time to brush up on my html, c++ and php I guess.
I appreciate the information.
“Most people can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect.†:D
Quote from: overtaker on January 06, 2010, 09:08:53 PM
Wilby. wrote:
explain to me why for the couple hundred years since bessler no one has demonstrated a working wheel... if you can't then that answers all the questions i need answered.
Actually there are two wheels that apparently worked since. The Asa Jackson wheel and the Buzzsaw wheel.
Bessler offered his head if his wheel wasn't as he said.
Would you offer your head if someone builds a working gravity wheel?
where can one find these 'apparently' working bessler wheels? nevermind, it's a rhetorical question... i know the tale behind asa's wheel and the buzzsaw (our famed ralph lortie found no ou in it...) and i don't know of anyone demonstrating a working one.
here is some brute reason... sorry to be unfair. don't you think if bessler's wheel worked more than two 'apparently working' wheels would have been made? ::)
Wilby wrote:
here is some brute reason... sorry to be unfair. don't you think if bessler's wheel worked more than two 'apparently working' wheels would have been made?
Fair enough, but Bessler's wheel did work! Many of the brightest minds are not working on this puzzle because it is taught to them that it is impossible.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on January 06, 2010, 11:40:31 PM
here is some brute reason... sorry to be unfair. don't you think if bessler's wheel worked more than two 'apparently working' wheels would have been made? ::)
Again there is no reasoning whatsoever in that statement. It is simply playing the odds, with NO credible information, insight or even a hint of education. Sorry to be unfair.
Maybe you should try to grasp the difference between up and down first.
:D
Well I'm not the brightest guy but I do recognize Smarts when I see them
Wilby I think you bit off more than than you could ever chew here.
Chet
PS
Super Ken
I like the Tiger woods joke
And "Soulshine " is very very cool
Chet,
Shoot me your email in a personal message and I will send you some sketches.
Between the sketches and the thread 98% of the concept can be seen.
Of course the thread is more revealing than the sketches. I am still waiting for someone to say, I understand your concept completely.
Instead what I get is "I don't understand your concept", along with, I " I won't waste my time building it" Which causes me to question their intellect and skills to even attempt to build it.
They want to see the design, but then can't understand it, which I think causes them to feel inferior, and the rest is easy to follow.
It reminds me of the little kid who wants the candy, and begs and begs, but once he realizes he is not getting any candy, the kid then says "well I didn't want it anyway"
If I didn't understand something, I sure wouldn't try to build it either.
I would ask questions. Interestingly enough, the majority of people who say they do not understand, NEVER ASK ANY QUESTIONS.
Which reveals their education process, or lack thereof. If you do not know, and do not ask, you are as dumb as you were when you started.
Which is why many people on this site are not smarter than a 3rd grader, I do not want to insult 5th graders.
(The previous statements don't apply to all, there are few people who are legitimate, sincere and they know who they are. They even ask questions!)
Now if I were interested in something, and someone showed me a design that I didn't understand, I surely would ask questions.
Almost no one is asking questions, yet, EVERYONE so far has said I do not understand. (Yes I had to repeat this because I want to make sure that people see how damn stupid they are) And some even say the design won't work after saying they do not understand it. They might as well be wearing a DUNCE hat, after making that statement.
This isn't about a design problem at all, but an emotional problem of the mass of ignorance that plagues this planet we live on.
Now with the exception of those few who ask questions or willing to once they have time, the rest of these nuts are worthless, even to a squirrel.
If someone states the design won't work, then an explanation is also required, as to why it won't work. Which is what I provide when I tell people their design won't work.
Facts and Math piss the majority of the population off because these 2 things destroy their reality. Personally I would rather have math and facts than the nuts for friends.
I might as well pee on myself for the warm fuzzy feeling. LOL
I don't coddle stupidity and never will.
I do however try to help anyone who is actually trying to learn or understand. Ask a question, the answer is free of charge.
Out of all the people I have talked with, ONE person has actually talked about CALCULATING things before a build. The rest of the people throw ideas out, and do not for some reason think calculations are necessary.
I now believe they do not do calculations, because they do not know how.
I do not see anyone even consider the TIME factor in anything.
If you have questions chet, feel free to ask, after you look at the sketches, just email me your questions. If you decide to build it, and it runs. I require you to inform me that it works. That's all I require.
Build them and give them to your friends and family.
Well time to fix some breakfast. :D
A note to Willy: No one has built a working wheel in the past 300 plus years because I just started working on this in December of last year! :D
overtaker,
If you would like some sketches send me your email in a personal message.
People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.
Super Ken a.k.a. Supreme Being
Nice to see a man of his word.
As you wish.
Chet
Chet,
Man of his word is the only way I know how to be. :D
If you decide to start building, let me know. There is one more point where energy is transferred in the low drum that has not been mentioned. And will not be mentioned on this thread. I will share it with you in an email though.
I have shared it with others in emails. If wasted energy is transferred to another part of the device, instead of just being wasted, then you have the chance of recovering that energy to put it to use. If a person just wastes the energy, there is no possibility of recovery.
If you see a point in the design which wastes energy, please point it out.
;D :D :P
I don't know everything, I'm desperately trying to figure out why kamikaze pilots wore helmets.
Ken, you mentioned Time Factor.
I've been breaking my head over some gravity wheels, and what to do about weight that take more time to do their work than to be reset. Straight up is simply a quicker way up. With sufficient intertia to get to the top, why waste time while you're going quick? I like a weight that gains height on it's own intertia aqap.
Is your Time Factor related to what I'm struggling with here?
Cloxxki
Time factors of shifting are simple. If a wheel turns at 20 RPM you will have 3 second for your action. So how much time to overbalance and then to reset makes it allot less per action.
Cloxxki,
When I say time factor, what I am talking about is in general and the failure to contemplate it.
You obviously are not ignoring the time factor because you ask "why waste time".
I see it this way, quicker is better to a point. Timing of the internal mechanisms however is much more important in my opinion.
If we are using gravity, then that would be a limiting factor on how fast the wheel could turn. Objects only fall so fast. The weights on the ascending side have to be in time with the descending side.
When we ponder this, we realize the distance the weights travel on the descending side must travel about 1.5 times as far as on the ascending side.
If we are shifting the weights to the axle.
So in fact the weights on the ascending side must travel SLOWER.
Or have a period where they stop, before descending.
How many designs can be eliminated once one realizes the ascending weights must travel slower?
It's the simple principles that reveal the most I think. And if a design is contrary to the principle. Then I would discard that aspect of the design.
Trade the speed of the weight at the bottom for power to shift it to the axle. That would be one idea I would look to do.
Well I have to go buy some things for a design modification on a medical device I am working on.
If I can be of help feel free to ask.
Ken
"A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice." :D
Ken said:
Objects only fall so fast.
So true but an easy way to slow the rotation is to add a load, which is the objective in the first place.
overtaker,
I agree to slow a wheel add a load. I think Cloxxki was wanting to make the wheel go faster, which would let him use more momentum of the weight to lift it.
At least that's what I thought he was talking about. He said why waste time? Which is a great question. The answer is, to stay in timing with the descending weights and not get ahead of them. So gravity limits the available momentum, and also the speed of the wheel.
:D
"Hermits have no peer pressure. "
Ken, Do you want me to ask the questions I have now and later in regards to the sketch here or by PM or email?
Quote from: overtaker on January 07, 2010, 06:33:36 AM
Fair enough, but Bessler's wheel did work! Many of the brightest minds are not working on this puzzle because it is taught to them that it is impossible.
bessler's wheel 'allegedly' worked... yet no working wheels are currently being demonstrated! imagine that... no worries about bright minds being taught that such is impossible, because now you have
the super genius, ken the great, working on this puzzle so a working wheel finally being demonstrated after 300 some years is in the near future... ::)
I was rereading and came across this. Ken said:
Count Karl said a peg held the weight until its zenith, then rotated out of the way.
I'm not sure Ken but I think IIRC this was found to be
not true and possibly fabricated by a writer. Maybe someone with more knowledge on this will post.
overtaker,
Lets go ahead and do it through email. I think confusing some people makes them angry. :D
General questions are ok on here, but design specific questions I would rather do privately. It also allows me to keep a record of the conversations.
On the subject of count Karl, the peg is not an issue, my design doesn't implement a rotating peg. Like I said before, once you get enough design aspects in place, the rest can be several different designs and still work.
I do believe that the way the weights are moved to the axle is important, and I will elaborate more in an email.
Send me your questions whenever you like.
:D
"All those who believe in telekinesis, raise my hand."
Bessler's earlier wheels were said to be 4inches thick and 4 - 5 ft. in diam. Do you think your wheel could be built this thin?
Also from the AP:
"In a true Perpetuum Mobile everything must, necessarily, go round together. There can be nothing involved in it which remains stationary on the axle." - pg 361
Would this rule out the drum?
Willy, I wouldn't worry too much about seeing a demonstration.
I sure wouldn't show you.
Unless of course everything was hidden from view. Then I would probably show you, hmm, the underside of my dogs tail. hehehe
:D
"Lifes Tough, get a helmet!"
Quote from: overtaker on January 07, 2010, 09:36:22 PM
Bessler's earlier wheels were said to be 4inches thick and 4 - 5 ft. in diam. Do you think your wheel could be built this thin?
Also from the AP:
"In a true Perpetuum Mobile everything must, necessarily, go round together. There can be nothing involved in it which remains stationary on the axle." - pg 361
Would this rule out the drum?
Except for the statement going around together, everything else fits.
If you look back I have repeated
"If the device used to push the weights to the axle on the ascending side is stationary, the device WILL NOT WORK!"
The thickness is not really an issue but yes, a precision build could be about 4 inches thick.
As I said I believe once you have enough pieces in place, this allows other aspects to have several different designs. However after reading that clue, a simple modification to the low drum would cause it to rotate together with the outer drum. of course at a different speed.
This is an easy modification. The concept remains the same.
ALL parts must move. Stationary parts cause massive power losses.
Great clue though, I will come up with the modification when I get the chance.
:D
"Physicists define stress as force per unit area. The rest of humanity defines stress as physics."
At what point do you expect the weight to shift to the perimeter? Thanks
overtaker,
I would say you could release the weight to head towards the perimeter at 12:00. I would not expect it to hit the perimeter until 1:00 or later because of the rotation of the wheel.
:D
"Science may set limits to knowledge, but should not set limits to imagination."
When I think about time in a gravity wheel, it's a simple wheel. Around the clock descending, along the axle ascending. Same height, but schorter route up. The inertia along the outside it built over a longer time than it takes to power itself to reach back the top exchanging iniertia for height. There's a 9% time gain to be exploited there, in a frictionless world.
Now, I don't see how an ascending weight could do useful work on the wheel other than get itself back to the top, and quickly so. Anything it does for work, kills height to be attained by a lot.
Descending though, I can see multiple weight being in line, heavily hampered by a load. The mechanism would build up a mechnical capacitor (spring/lever/parallelogram) and shoot up weights all the way back to the top, one by one. Sounds simple, but obviously isn't, as mathemetically there is no gain until it's appointed by someone.
In the simple "ascend along the axle" I like this idea, I'll just throw it out.
2 weights,
Always a positive start speed for weight at 12:00 as well as for the wheel itself.
Second weight at 180degrees.
Wheel is being bump-started to get to working rpm
Top speed for weights at 6:00, inertia of weight being greater than potential required to reach top
Inside line (off the wheel) taken towards 12:00, at higher angular velocity than the wheel.
Weight reaches top early (gain rim distance on wheel) with some spare velocity left, which is where any gain would be harvested.
As the ascended weight is "early" (a couple degrees), the rim and bottom weight are not at top speed just yet.
Each weight would need it's own freewheel I now see, connected by a form of clutch. Angular gain in the one wheel would be transferred to the other to re-sync.
Hey Cloxxki,
I am not understanding where you come up with a 9% time gain.
What formulas and values did you use?
If you have a 9% time gain on 180 degrees of the wheel (the ascending side), as compared to the other 180 degrees of the wheel ( the descending side). there would be more like 16.2 degrees of advance. Not just a couple degrees. Internal timing is critical to the function of the wheel.
When I look at my design there is actually a 90 to 95 degree advance on the ascending side, but this is combined with a slower pace of the weight, followed by the timing being retarded but at about half the rate of the advance.
Once the weight is fully shifted to the axle, the timing is automatically retarded, by the design of the wheel, to come back into sync once the weight reaches 12:00.
Now one can try to use individual wheels for each weight then try to sync them, but I am not sure what that design would look like. I imagine it would have to transfer so much energy to resync itself, that the gain would be dramatically less.
Imagine the weight at 7:30 and taking up energy to be sent to the top on the perimeter of the wheel. But at about 7:30 the weight disappears and reappears at about 12:00. This takes less than 1/2 second if the wheel is turning 20 rpm. Compared to over 1.5 seconds if it were just rotating around the wheel. Now that the timing is advanced, there is no power needed to lift the weight any longer.
This leaves all kinds of power to shift the weight to the axle, if it were still around 8:00 to 8:30. (not 7:30 due to the less than 1/2 second we spoke of) Which it is. The weight is effectually in both places at the same time.
Kind of a cool trick.
The advance of the timing happens in less than 1/2 of one second. From 7:30 to 12:00. However the retarding of the timing happens much slower.
Keeping an advance in the ascending side as long as possible before coming back into sync.
Now when we think about this for a minute the weight against the axle is moving much slower than the perimeter weight. Add this factor to the effect of the timing being retarded, we can see that the rate of the timing being slowed is much less than the rate of advance.
In actuality it must be close to twice as slow as the advance in timing.
When we look to the universe we see objects speed up and slow down as they go around their orbits.
For instance a comet travels much faster just after it goes around the sun than it does just before it turns to head towards the sun in its outer most part of its orbit. This is a principle of perpetual motion.
When we look at designs, this too must happen in my opinion. The weight must be traveling fastest as it leaves the axle or tightest orbit. Now almost opposite of the fastest point would be the slowest point, but that's when the advance in timing occurs. Eliminating the effect of gravity on the ascending side, until the tightest orbit is achieved. At which point the weight is retarded to get back into sync, then speeds back up to its fastest speed as it leaves the tightest orbit. Then the cycle repeats itself.
We can pull designs out of a hat and then build them for the next however many years. Or we can look to the principles which already exist and create a design that mimics what already works.
Well I have things to do , so I must bid you farewell at this time.
Have fun! 8)
"If you are a mathematician then you need not be told about the beauty of a mathematical theory of physics, and if you aren't one, then nothing could convince you of it"
Ken,
I merely took the time difference between a vertical fall over X versus the hang time of a weight attached to a weightless rod, like the dial of a clock from 12 to 6. I may accidentally have taken 3 tot 6, and it may have been 11%, it was some time ago that I did it. Same ballpark time gain, though. It comes from the "flat" spots on a wheel, top and bottom where nothing much in terms of work is being done, just mostly horizontal ground covered. The steeper path along the axle with take some of that away.
If you release weight A at 12, it takes t to reach 6.
Exactly then, weight B weight is released at 12, 180 degrees. This weight will take t as well.
Yet, the ascending path is tighter and thus weight A reaches 12 before B reaches 6. A 2.05t for instance, you'd have two weights on the descending sides, even though at 1t, the wheel was in balance. Syncing is totally left out here, obviously.
Your "shifts" and "advancements" are not to be understood by me, probably because they were intentionally vague. I can't build much at all even with lego so I'm not the one that could help you anyway.
I like the idea to shoot the weights up (loaded spring, elastic band, or multiple working weights for one ascending) rather than slowly bringing them up. The acceleration required would be strong, but short. Total energy though, I don't see differing.
I've always been fascinated by the fact that a twice as fast object can climb more than twice as high on it's own inertia. x=1/2gt2 begs to be used to our advantage somehow, but I have not found that.
Cloxxki,
I do not understand why you are comparing a weight falling straight down to one on the perimeter of a wheel. This comparison to me doesn't reveal anything useful for designing a wheel.
The way I see it is, one must compare the ascending to the descending. This will give us useful information. Unless the ascending weight is rising straight up at the same rate, that same weight falls straight down, I see no useful information that can be extrapolated by comparing a free falling weight to one in a wheel.
The advance in timing I am speaking of is ascending verses descending.
The advance in timing of the ascending weight happens without lifting the weight. Once the timing begins to advance, no power is needed for lifting and all power at that point in time can be used to shift the weight to the axle.
Then after the weight is against the axle, the timing being retarded actually creates a gain until the weight is back in sync. Seems if you design a certain way, you have power losses at every point you examine. The better design creates gain automatically and it seems like there are small gains at every point you examine. It is inherent to the design.
Well I have to go work on something.
8)
"Science does not know its debt to imagination."
Hello All who have been reading.
I have modified my list of criteria that must be adhered to for a design of a working wheel.
1) One must harness the power of gravity.
2) One must store potential energy to be released at a specific time.
3) One must take full advantage of the kinetic energy available once the wheel is in motion.
4) One must reduce the power needed to lift the weight on the ascending side until the weight has been reoriented to its new path, off the perimeter.
Or transfer this power from the lift to the reorientation simultaneously.
This can be done by advancing the timing of the ascending weight, as compared to the descending side. One could also retard the timing of the weight on the ascending side then move it to the top at the same speed as the perimeter, because of the shorter path the timing would be possible.
5) All parts inside the wheel, that touch a moving part, must move. The supports the axle sits on is outside of the wheel and therefore irrelevant.
Number 5 may be refined later, to a more concise revelation.
If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose. Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase in souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure
will drop until Hell freezes over. 8)
Hello all,
I am working on number 5 of the list and have a modification. This may not be the last modification.
5) All parts inside the wheel, that touch a moving part, must move. All moving parts that come in contact with a separate part. Must cause the separate part to move in the same relative direction as the part contacting it. The larger the direction change the larger the power loss.
Have Fun 8)
"We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming."
Hey Ken, Hope all is well.
How are the modifications coming?
Started building?