a rebel without a crew

[getterdone]

If it wasn't -40 outside I'd be in my shop trying to prove you wrong.

Let's go back to your original post

''PM cannot be derived from throwing weights around a fixed point of rotation ( there lies madness )

I've been nuts my whole life, so even if it's madness ,it's ok with me. What I'm trying to do, is show an energy gain with no apparent difference , let's say moving a lever a 1/4 inch, and measuring a 3lbs difference. In my mind that would be ''everything equal on both sides''

If you want to wager, I go England twice a month, you can by me one of those weird dark brown beers that you Brits like so much.

Leo

[triplock]

Leo
The reason I state emphatically that continuous rotation cannot be achieved thru the standard route of creating OB by weight displacement around a fixed cor, is because of 7 years of failed attempts. I pursued every conceivable configuration, then the futility of it hit me like a ton of brick.

I am now pursuing another tact thru creating a balanced system first.

The brown drink in England is called Bitter. IMO it is utter slop. I prefer a latte now that I'm over 40 :-D

Its 29 degrees (80+) in Gran Canaria. Home Saturday though to snow :-(

Chris

[jim_mich]

then the futility of it hit me like a ton of brick.

Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the center than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago, I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn through bitter experience.

[justsomeone]

Sorry Chris but you did not try every conceivable configuration. ;) Maybe every one you could think of.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Jim,

I think it may have been lost in translation again, maybe it should have been, "better experiments" : )

With respect Trevor

[getterdone]

LOL, good one Trevor

Chris, aren't we both trying to accomplish the same thing. Start with a balanced wheel, and move a lever, or weight a wee bit, maybe 1/16th of an inch, and it's out of balance

[rlortie]

Getterdone.

Your repeated statement of moving the weights in just a little to gain a couple three pounds reminds me of Darrel Vandugegs

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/searc ... 22&start=0

He built such a machine. Making it large in diameter and using lots of 85 to one hundred pound weights. Ramp them up an inch or so just past six. Then at 12:30 ramp them back out again. It will run for quite some time after a very hefty start up. Long enough in some cases, to convince some that it does exhibit O-U, but it does not!

Now; take note of this: He offered to come and assist me build his machine If I would pay the expense of keeping him.

In all he has suckered financial backing and living expense from three different entities that I am aware of.

Ralph

[getterdone]

Hi Ralph, thanks for the heads up. I can't get on the link.

How many weights did he use?

I'm already feeding 7, so he can't move here either lol

Leo

[rlortie]

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/searc ... 22&start=0

The link is to 102 posts by Vandugegs found by going to 'members' and search alphabetically for him and then click on "posts made by member"

You can also find him under "Fraud" 'A working Wheel @ http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... highlight=

As for the number of weights he used, I do not recall but it was at least twelve or better.

Ralph

[cloud camper]

Same concept here as far as starting with a balanced wheel and then just
diverting the weights a small distance (outwards in this case).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5tH8ibslew

As we see, it will not run by itself, requiring a motor to continue the deflection.

The inventor claims the motor is only needed for startup and then begins generating power. Right ------

[iacob alex]

Hi !

....."a rebel without a crew" ?...my friend,try to be optimistical !

The time of a gravity motor (or as you like to call it...) ,is really "on air",but as a dispersed puzzle game on net.

An US gamester ,has an interesting starting point with :

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cub5Z8LTgzQ

It plays simply a lever with a variable arm...but sorry,it's not self moving...

The basic idea,in my opinion ,will work...but how?...this remains as the single problem to solve.

I think and I hope in the same time ,this year we enter the Aquarius ,with gravity motor and inertial/centrifugal pulsatory propulsion.

But you see, the real wonder is and will be this "heavenly" media,internet,a huge common free thinking space...we can change ideas.

All the best ! / Alex

[triplock]

Leo
Of course I can't say that I've investigated every single permutation possible in the pursuit of creating OB rotation through radial displacement of weights, whether they be single, paired, or multiple masses, and whether displacement is achieved by levers, pullies, ropes, springs etc, or whether it's an open or closed axle, but what I can say is that nearly all are variations of the same theme.
The hurdle that cannot be overcome is that you cannot return a mass to it's starting point in an energy free manner; that , ultimately, is what we are trying to do using a self-contained system of weights within a rotating body.

Therefore, I have to conclude that the rotation witnessed is just an example of work being done by the arrangement in side the wheel, which isn't necessarily revolutionary in the typical sense.

Moreover, there seems to be a parallel debate about whether CF was a fuel to power a wheel. IMHO it was merely used as a governor . In any event, I believe, which is the area I'm looking at now, that the internal mech operation was at a much lower speed than the outer drum ( I don't believe both were cyclic in nature, rather just the outer drum or screen ).

Finally, the trouble with saying or accepting that rotation was not achieved by standard OB approaches is that it is a bitter pill to swallow, as it almost discount years of personal effort and conviction. That is the greatest hurdle to overcome.

Chris

[getterdone]

Thanks for the heads-up guys. I've been building these things for a few years now, and I enjoy reading all your stuff.

I quit school at 14, so the bit of physics stuff I did learn came from this site.

The summer of 2009 was a slow year in the oilfeilds due to the economic crisis. I spent a lot of time in my shop that summer trying to crack this puzzle.

What I'm building now is something I built that summer, but was never able to explain properly to this forum . This build, as it was, will not be a runner. But it's the closest I ever got.

My plan is simply to rebuild it , and share the results with this forum, provide a video, dimmentions and weights, to see if anyone can figure out the missing part of the puzzle.

With regards

Leo

[cloud camper]

Here is a bit of physics that could easily be learned and save thousands of hours of shop time not to mention $$$$.

Any collection of weights on a rotating wheel is undergoing an energy conversion process.

The weights going down are converting PE (height) to KE (motion) and the
weights going up are doing the exact reverse.

This problem has already been studied and solved for you by a great mathematician.

The law is any energy conversion process that is already underway (rotation) has a corresponding conservation law, that is there is no possible gain in energy as this is a closed system.

That is, there is nothing you can move or displace within this system of already rotating masses that could effect it's total energy.

There is a loophole however. The loophole is that if individual weights are brought to a complete stop, that individual weight in the system is now "open" to make changes that could effect the energy of the system.

This is what JB was trying to show with MT138. JB had figured out the law of conservation hundreds of years before Emmy Noether described it all mathematically.

This is the most important JB clue to be considered then. The only possibly workable mechanism is one in which individual weights are brought to a complete stop before changes are made. This makes it much easier for us then as both JB and Emmy agree on the principle!

This concept in addition eliminates any concepts built around CF as there is no way to bring a weight to a stop and retain CF.

[jim_mich]

One of my early attempts at controlling CF:


Note that the red lines are red rubber band springs.
Also note that I was attempting to harness gravity.
This led me to spend a couple years writing Visual Basic computer programs somewhat like I used to produce this animation, but where I actually calculated all the forces and produced visual graphs of the forces.
It was from that early research that I eventually discovered the necessary motions needed by weights to cause perpetual rotation.

Though I was like Bessler searching for a gravity solution, the solution turned out to not involve gravity.