The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

[MarkE]

A little note about pendulum : it is a less friction movement example. It proves there is no law of conservation of WORK. The same energy can do much more work if friction is limited to single point where pendulum is connected to the support.
That's all an enough. If the same is used ( I don't know how yet) with lever then surely very curious things are possible....

You are flat wrong.  The work that a pendulum does is ideally zero.  Energy just moves between two forms.  A pendulum does real work overcoming friction in the bearings and air friction, AKA windage.  That work that is done must be identically replaced with outside energy each and every cycle.

[zoelra]

gurangax said

A 2 stage oscillator is actually using this phenomenon of energy amplification when it is doing its job. My 2 stage lever is doing the same thing but in a much better way. As a conclusion what the device really is, is a device able to tap the energy from gravity and convert it into mechanical energy, or should we call it a gravity mill

EDIT:

Would you please clarify what you mean by "phenomenon of energy amplification" ?

The way you use it sounds like it means the increasing kinetic energy of an object as it free falls.

[AB Hammer]

You are flat wrong.  The work that a pendulum does is ideally zero.  Energy just moves between two forms.  A pendulum does real work overcoming friction in the bearings and air friction, AKA windage.  That work that is done must be identically replaced with outside energy each and every cycle.

MarkE

The pendulum is ideally zero. This is what has intrigued me for a long time. You supply the first part of energy lifting it up to release. Then it swings lifting up the other side nearly the same distance. Then lifting to the other side and so on. The total amount of distance you lifted, lets say 3 feet. Yet the pendulum action of the many times it lifts many many times more than that.  It almost seems something is missing.
Now! I'm not going to say one way or the other but just to bring up another way to look at it.

Alan

[MarkE]

MarkE

The pendulum is ideally zero. This is what has intrigued me for a long time. You supply the first part of energy lifting it up to release. Then it swings lifting up the other side nearly the same distance. Then lifting to the other side and so on. The total amount of distance you lifted, lets say 3 feet. Yet the pendulum action of the many times it lifts many many times more than that.  It almost seems something is missing.
Now! I'm not going to say one way or the other but just to bring up another way to look at it.

Alan

Alan absolutely nothing is missing.  In order to avoid describing this using calculus, let's look at three states:  up left, up right, and down.  Let's also remove all friction, including windage for a moment.  When the pendulum is up left or up right it has identical gravitational potentials, both the maximum that it will have.  When it is down it has the minimum gravitational potential that it will have.  It also has the maximum kinetic energy at the instant that it passes through zero.  Because there is no friction, and no external load, the pendulum does not perform any work as it swings back and forth.  Energy simply converts from gravitational potential to kinetic energy and back.  All that energy is stored.  It is just stored in the combination of two different forms, reaching a maximum in one form and the minimum in the other form at each of the three states.  When one loads the pendulum either with something that does external work, such as a generator set-up or a crank that might lift something up, or even friction, then the pendulum delivers energy, and in order to maintain the same amplitude, IE in order to sustain, that external energy delivered, must be replenished from another outside source.

[Bumblebee]

Anyway are you going to share your findings? anyway from your previous post i dont think it is the same mechanism.


regards

That was a different wheel. If you haven't already got a runner you will soon see why I said good luck. I'm sure you don't want me to steal you thunder, do you?.