The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

[AB Hammer]

I tried to replicate Gurangax's idea of the Bessler wheel.  Didn't work.  I'm open for any input to make it work.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0-WHDsGNjE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4VjYddOL4w


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBAGelJkBZ0


Dusty

Dusty

I have always liked your construction work of builds. But in truth Gurangax's ideas are more trading places and no real gain. 
In his video of  http://youtu.be/HPkZhh3LVPo  is the one that approached more of what I have done and I am bringing out to newer work on my string. There is a lot more to deal with in this approach. and a free arm is not necessary, for you loose effects like lift. 

http://www.overunity.com/14703/a-fast-device-which-uses-inverted-pendulums/#.U5YjCKNOWUk


Alan

[TinselKoala]

Yes, phaedrus, I contacted gurangax about replicating and he said yes.


Thanks for your input, I'll try out what you said.  The way I built the device I can easily swap out parts and re-adjust the lever arm.


Dusty

Care to make a new bet? Since gurangax has welched on the old one?

Same terms as before, but I'll give you _three_ months this time. Midnight Central Standard Time in the USA on September 10.

[phaedrus]

...and that's the problem.

AZ

I am unable to open up the wm2d files you have submitted (would someone please convert these into .avi's?) since I don't have a copy of that software.  But from thinking about this in my head, I don't see that this is a deal-breaker.  But perhaps it is just not possible to simulate in wm2d.

You could have the lever when it falls and the end gets to the bottom, goes past some kind of little resistance point (Like those little balls they have on some tools, with a little spring behind it, so if you push something onto the tool it doesn't just fall off. But this would need to be something that is much easier to get past).  So that the lever goes even beyond just hanging straight down, but its actually a little past that.  Now, if you have it do that, it won't even try to fly out as it rotates back up to the top.  Then you just need something that gives it a little push up on top.  At that point it would be nice if you had access to something that wasn't moving, and I realize that that is not true in a real Bessler Wheel.  But I see that on Dusty's 2nd device I was talking about, he has at the end of the axle a nut that is stationary as it is turning around.  So I think he could theoretically attach something to that, a long thin piece of flat steel connected to the end of the axle that goes up to the top, and would just need to have like a little ramp up there that the end of the lever would move over and cause itself to then be pushed past the slight resistance point and swing down and the cycle would repeat.

[Dusty]

TK, no I'm not betting anything.  But I did offer Gurangax the 100 bucks to pay off the bet.  I just wanted him to clear this mess up he got himself into and come back to the forum. 


You know, hit the reset button and lets get a fresh start on this Bessler thing.  I think he has some great insight as to all the Bessler riddles, but those computer simulations fooled him
and his approach to letting us know needed to be different. 


During the replication I only had the one drawing to go of off, the animation of the energy gain.  He corrected me on a couple things and I would make the changes, but other than that we really
didn't communicate that much.  I didn't even once ask him if he had a working device.  I figured if he said he did I would go by his word and just let him guide me through the replication.


Actually even right now I'm really not sure if he really has a running device or not.  My only interest was to just replicate and see what I could do.


Maybe he'll still surprise us, you know, give me another heart attack.


Dusty

[TinselKoala]

TK, no I'm not betting anything.  But I did offer Gurangax the 100 bucks to pay off the bet.  I just wanted him to clear this mess up he got himself into and come back to the forum. 

That's a foul, you know. The point of a bet is that the loser is penalized in some way. If someone else pays off for him and he comes back, he hasn't really lost anything and he has the satisfaction of knowing that he has duped someone into taking responsibility for his lies and fails.

You know, hit the reset button and lets get a fresh start on this Bessler thing.  I think he has some great insight as to all the Bessler riddles, but those computer simulations fooled him
and his approach to letting us know needed to be different. 

During the replication I only had the one drawing to go of off, the animation of the energy gain.  He corrected me on a couple things and I would make the changes, but other than that we really
didn't communicate that much.  I didn't even once ask him if he had a working device.  I figured if he said he did I would go by his word and just let him guide me through the replication.


Actually even right now I'm really not sure if he really has a running device or not.  My only interest was to just replicate and see what I could do.


Maybe he'll still surprise us, you know, give me another heart attack.


Dusty

Of course he doesn't have a running device, and of course he has no unique or "new" insight into Bessler's "riddles". You can hit the reset button as many times as you like, but gravity will still be a conservative field of force.

Here, are you up to this challenge?

Take any actual Bessler or other "gravity wheel" prototype model with moving parts like weights and levers. Of course it doesn't spin on its own, but if we give it a little starting push we can see how long it takes to come to a stop after that little push. So figure out a way to give your wheel a repeatable and known amount of energy in a starting "push". Like wrapping a string around the axle or periphery and letting a dropping weight pull on the string to start the wheel. In this way you can precisely repeat a known amount of starting energy to your wheel.  Make a few runs, timing the rundown time and computing an average and a variance (or standard deviation). If you are careful and your wheel is stable you should be able to get a consistent rundown time (small SD) from run to run. Right?

Now take your wheel with its moving parts and freeze every one of them at "half-travel". By tightening or glue or other means. Leave only the central axle unfrozen. So now you have an inert wheel of the same mass as before and hopefully the same average moment of inertia. Right? Now repeat the timed rundowns using the same energy injection method as before.  Do a bunch of runs, compute the average and the standard deviation.

Compare and report your findings. Repeat the rundown tests with any additions, changes, "improvements" etc that you might make.

It should be clear that any real "working" modification that works as Bessler intended should _increase_ the rundown time over the inert wheel. But if the rundown time is _decreased_... then your modification didn't work, it's actually worse than a simple solid and symmetrical disc would be.

I say this: there is no modification involving moving parts that will increase the rundown time, over that found with a solid inert disk of the same MoI. None. Unless of course the system is powered somehow, and not by gravity. Moving parts like falling levers, shifting weights, etc. are a loss mechanism that dissipates power through frictional heating, noise, and moving air around. They don't add to the rotational energy of the wheel.


The same testing principle holds for Permanent Magnet Motors. If you replace all your magnets with inert blocks of the same mass.... do you get longer, or shorter rundown times from a known starting impulse?