BesslerWheel.com

I have never been too sure of how to take the "no weights at the perimeter of the wheel" claims. Are we talking no heavy weights, or not even the smaller weights that cause the raising of the heavy ones? If we really believe there are no weights at all, near the perimeter, then why would t...

No Sam, we didn't all win.
We all lost, like we always do.
Keep looking.

I think it's the relation to the total mass, because of the % the wheel's mass changing, with the number of additional masses that threw me off with my initial answer. It doesn't matter how many weights are on the wheel, because with the weight, or without the weight, will always be the difference o...

Robinhood46 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 6:59 pm The answer is two weights.

Are you sure, you bloody idiot?
I am having serious doubts since i posted that.

Surely the same logic would apply to 3 and 4 evenly distributed weights?
It is only when you go above 4 that the removal of 1 weight is less than 100% of the opposing weight.

The answer is two weights. If you only have one weight evenly distributed, which means anywhere you like on the periphery, when you remove one weight you will have a perfectly balanced wheel. No torque whatsoever. Any other number of weights than two, would mean you are only removing a fraction of t...

If Frog wants to do something "correct and constructive", he can start by apologising for taking us all for complete jerks, admit that he doesn't actually have a runner, or know factually that his solution does work. He can then ask us nicely to forgive him for being a "bit if jerk&qu...

Lol.
Fletcher is more diplomatic than me when it comes to expressing our different views. But we are on the same page.

I have been there done it and i don't want to go there again. I might even get a T shirt printed. I will tell you exactly what will happen. You will share your amazing idea(s). I will tell you that i have already given it some thought or something very similar, or that this member or that member has...

Hello Robinhood46, It's nice meeting you. Thank you for your reply. It really means a lot to me for someone to give me time. I’ll be forthcoming and honest with you. I would like to keep my ideas, projects, and communications about my ideas and projects as they relate to energy machines private and...

I don't speak French, can you send all replies to me in English. Hello Robinhood46, I learned about you through Thx4. Or what I think he meant when he said RH46. That's you right? He said your French is good. Is that true? Do you equally speak as good English as you do French? Can we talk privately...

"If this has been observed in practice, it indicates that the system has effectively achieved a way to redistribute energy" That is the bit that counts Frog. There is a condition, a supposition, an assumption or however else you wish to express the signification of the word "if" ...

I did say we need to change the definition of perpetual motion. It does say "you would need an external energy source to continuously “kick” the system, either by periodically re-stretching the springs". I was for PM's new definition "poked occasionally with a stick", but i am no...

I think it is unfortunate that Frog didn't stay to give some feedback. There is always the possibility of a slight discrepancy between what he is trying to tell us and what we are understanding. I might be talking nonsense, because as i have already said, i only skimmed over the thread. Another thou...

Frog wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2024 5:01 pm I have read all in this forum now and - its - something -
I think I will just leave it.
Bye to you all -
- Frog

I think we all know what that means.

Frog,
You are not helping yourself here.
We have enough riddles to sort out from over 300 years ago, we don't need more.
Do you have a runner, in the real world or a simulation, or are you sharing your conviction that it would be, if you, or someone else, built it correctly?