Basic 4 Weighted Wheel Concept

[johnny874]

Jim,
What I wanted to express, and you may well be onto that for long, is that with the weight moving inside their slots, their actual radial load on the wheel is different from a static one. You could say the wheel is exerting energy to throw the weight into a wider orbit. It's costing energy, because the radial speed of the weight is supposed to be increased at the same time.
There should be a gain on first glance from overbalance, but there isn't because you can't get the weight into the wider orbit AND at increased radial speed. There's not the gravity available to do that. It's just 9.8m/s² on tap like the rest of the wheel is bound to.
We need the weight to behave in a certain way. And it it would, we'd have OU right there. Unfortunately, the weight just uses up all the potential energy it's got, for the vertical loss available. The outer orbit has a kinetic energy requirement gravity cannot account for. Due to the angle of the slots, whichever angle or curve you choose.

To understand why this wheel doesn't work, might set you on a path to find the ultimate clue, or cheat it.

Until, the search is for a rock that has yet to fall, to use for gravity extraction. Or, a hole that has already been dug.
Anyone ever calculate how much energy it would give to let the surround height slide into the Grand Canyon in a controlled fashion?

   Cloxxki,
  I think you've mentioned something that is often over looked.
The thinking behind this design is the weights shift at the same time.
If the weight moving downward moves outward when it is 45 degrees from top center, it will advance radially. But to consider the balance of the wheel, if it advances 10 degrees, and it takes 10 degrees of rotation, then it will be 25 degrees above the plane of the axle.
When the opposing weight starts to move towards center, it will be 35 degrees below the plane of the axle. What I don't know myself is if the weight moves in while the wheel rotates (the weight moving inward is not lifted), how does this effect the momentum of the wheel ?
When I consider the math, this is missing. I only calculated it's path. Why this would matter is this would give the wheel 10 degrees of rotation where 3 weights can accelerate and have a greater amount of combined momentum. Of course, if the weight moves in whileit is being lifted, it will keep it's own momentum.
I think this is one of the reasons why I like this seemingly simple wheel.

Merry Christmas Cloxxki.

                                                                       Jim

[johnny874]

   cloxxki,
Remember when you mentioned that the weight A has unused energy ?
I have thought of something. If when it stops, it's stop is at an angle, it's
force can be directed in the direction the wheel is rotating.
Why this can help is when weight B moves to it's start position, it will lose
momentum. This will help to over come that. Also, when weight B moves inward,
it's momentum can be deflected upwards and downwards. This would keep it from
trying to rotate the wheel backwards. That is something I have always over looked.
If you look at it's position, it rolls inward in a direction that stays below the level
of the axle. But if the end of it's slot has 2 angles, then it's momentum could effectively
be cancelled. Then it might have a chance of working.
This would be because while weight B is moving to it's start position, the other 3 weights
would be accelerating, basically acting as a flywheel. Then it might be able to coast in a balanced position. While it is balanced, it would use a minimum amounbt of energy to continue rotating. And it seems a minimum of about 40% overbalance is required. If it's inner CoG is 30 cm's from center, then 30*4= 12cm's of over balance.
There are a few tricks that would/could help to time and increase the shift of the 2 weights.

                                                                                 Jim             

edited to add; first pic shows how weight B can have it's force redirected in 2 different directions. This will allow the momentum fromweight A to
have more potential. The 2nd pic shows how a small drop will get the weights rolling. With weight B, this can help to over come inertia. And because of inertia, the drop off for weight B might need to be a mm or 2 higher than weight A.
in the end, if the wheel can accelerate for 10 degrees out of every 90 degrees of rotation, it might have a chance. Also, if the over balance is a little more than 40% it should help. One thing to remeber though, the more over balance there is, the less time for acceleration.
What might be an odd thought is this, while weight B is moving towards it's start position, if it isn't creating much resistence, then the distance it is from center for the period of rotation is a non factor. This means that for the extra 10 degrees or so that I added to the under balanced side would be putting limits on it that might not exist to that degree. Of course, if all things are equal, then the wheel being able to accelerate is what is important. It is acceleration that is converted into momentum.
Happy New Year All
                     Jim

[Cloxxki]

The problem with B moving inward, is that it's immediate falling behind radially and vertically. You can temporarily save some inertial cost from it by letting it roll "back". the wheel would only support B, not lift it for a moment. Then though, it leaves fewer degrees for the wheel to complete B's lift afterwards.
In the various Abeling discussions, we found that even a weight path along the axle doesn't help. Not with all the leverage in the world, because leverage goes at the equal cost of angle.
Abeling, as far as we could tell, made the B side lighter by letting the weight roll up a ramp not part of the rotating wheel. But as a weight rolls up a ramp, it loses potential energy it might as well have invested in the wheel.

Off-topic for a moment because I think it might be the key to all gravity wheels that were or weren't.
If Abeling is for real, I expect weights to be spinning magnets, of which the orientation varies the load on the wheel up and down. Using the inertial differences at free moving speeds rather than the mass which is equal when stationary.
Let's take for a fact that there's a is difference between a single magnet falling off a roof, versus 2 magnets pressed together in opposing mode, or spinning relative to earth in a certain direction. A scale won't be able to tell, but experients I've read on, suggest that there is a difference in flight path and duration.
If earth cannot pull as well on a magnet in a certain spin or situation, it may also be cheaper to smack up, to reach height Y. I can think of several way to then change orientation to earth, or other magnets, at no or little cost, possible smaller than the gains to be had in the vertical part.
What if Bessler and Abeling had pretty basic machine exploiting an anomalous characteric of the chosen weight? The various designs are the smoke screen, the trick is what you're lifting, not as much how. that's how I'd patent something like that. Describe, vaguely, all ways that will work for the anomaly, without mentioning it.
Bessler kept his weights a secret right? They could have been magnets. Oriented differently up than down. Or being spun up by the wheel, either by rolling on a smaller stumb than its outer diameter acting as axle or cog to get good rpms. The inertia being recovered at the end of the lift or drop, and used to repeat. A clock maker would know how. A simple spring would collect most of the spin from the weight, and pass it on to the next weight that needs it.

[johnny874]

The problem with B moving inward, is that it's immediate falling behind radially and vertically. You can temporarily save some inertial cost from it by letting it roll "back". the wheel would only support B, not lift it for a moment. Then though, it leaves fewer degrees for the wheel to complete B's lift afterwards.
In the various Abeling discussions, we found that even a weight path along the axle doesn't help. Not with all the leverage in the world, because leverage goes at the equal cost of angle.
Abeling, as far as we could tell, made the B side lighter by letting the weight roll up a ramp not part of the rotating wheel. But as a weight rolls up a ramp, it loses potential energy it might as well have invested in the wheel.

Off-topic for a moment because I think it might be the key to all gravity wheels that were or weren't.
If Abeling is for real, I expect weights to be spinning magnets, of which the orientation varies the load on the wheel up and down. Using the inertial differences at free moving speeds rather than the mass which is equal when stationary.
Let's take for a fact that there's a is difference between a single magnet falling off a roof, versus 2 magnets pressed together in opposing mode, or spinning relative to earth in a certain direction. A scale won't be able to tell, but experients I've read on, suggest that there is a difference in flight path and duration.
If earth cannot pull as well on a magnet in a certain spin or situation, it may also be cheaper to smack up, to reach height Y. I can think of several way to then change orientation to earth, or other magnets, at no or little cost, possible smaller than the gains to be had in the vertical part.
What if Bessler and Abeling had pretty basic machine exploiting an anomalous characteric of the chosen weight? The various designs are the smoke screen, the trick is what you're lifting, not as much how. that's how I'd patent something like that. Describe, vaguely, all ways that will work for the anomaly, without mentioning it.
Bessler kept his weights a secret right? They could have been magnets. Oriented differently up than down. Or being spun up by the wheel, either by rolling on a smaller stumb than its outer diameter acting as axle or cog to get good rpms. The inertia being recovered at the end of the lift or drop, and used to repeat. A clock maker would know how. A simple spring would collect most of the spin from the weight, and pass it on to the next weight that needs it.

   Cloxxki,
Last night, I was looking at 2 drawings I had printed. I realized they do go together.
They also have a detail that is in a 3rd drawing. They do support what I am building.
Thse 3 drawings would be the proof of Besler's wheel. I think this is where now I can relax and
enjoy doing the build.
Because I am building, I am going to focus on that. I hope you don't mind.

@replaced, there is still hope for you. Of course, I could be wrong.

                                                                                                                Jim 

[johnny874]

   @All,
By starting with something like the 4 weighted wheel, I have progressed to this.
Mt's 66 & 67 go together. They are similar to another drawing Bessler made.
If you consider how Bessler lettered certain things in the 2 drawings, they are
combined to be A,B,C,D and E. A complete sequence.
In Mt 66, A is a tube that goes from the bladder at the bottom to the bladder
at the top. In Mt 67, A is to the right where the bladders are filled. This could
be his way of showing a tube's location.  Also, as surprising as it may seem, D
would be the same in both drawings. The third drawing links them together. If
so, then A is a tube, B is a pump, C is a lever, D is going unmentioned for now
and E would be a weight.
In Mt 26, the  weight rolling in a channel to the outside edge from the center
of the wheel is the same letter as in Mt 27. Where he placed a weight that "rolls"
around a channel on the outside edge of the wheel.
The detail I mentioned in the previous post is not to one of his Mt's. Today, I
might start building a new board warping fixture. It does need to be precise
as a wheel is a machine or motor, depending on which way you want to look
at it. By next week, I should be warping boards and then can think about other
details I need to build.
I know this will probably be doubted, but then, I am the one building it.

                                                                            Jim

edited to correct direction.