Gravity Wheel -or- Motion Wheel

[jim_mich]

Do you mean this sentence?

But, crazy Wagner, just note that that is indeed the case with my device.

Bessler is still talking about how fast his wheel rotates. The discussion is not about 'weight' rising in a flash inside the wheel. The discussion is about the rotation speed of the wheel, which requires the weights to rise and fall at a speed of 50 RPM. It was the fast speed that Wagner was saying proved the wheel could not be rotated by rising and falling weights. Bessler responded using the same phrases that Wagner used, "rise up" and "in a flash", to indicate that the weights which rest below (are at the bottom of the wheel) do indeed rise up to the top of the wheel "in a flash" at a speed of 50 RPM. This discussion between Wagner and Bessler was not about weights rising up inside the wheel and thus causing OOB rotation. It was about the speed of the wheel. Wagner maintained that because of the wheel speed the weights could not move fast enough to rise and fall while moving in and out. And Bessler responded back that indeed the weights do rise and fall with the wheel rotation and do indeed move in and out fast enough to keep up with the 50 RPM speed of the wheel.

But then just to make things a little clearer, Bessler adds a caution about presuming that you know how the wheel works. This is a caution about presuming that the rising and falling of weights is the cause of the wheel rotation due to OOB of the weights. You need to learn to read between the lines. Bessler was limited as to what he could say, for one slip of a word might give away his secret.

[jim_mich]

This discussion between Wagner and Bessler reminds me of previous discussions here on the forum as to CF causing weights to be pinned outward when the wheel rotation is too fast. Wagner was saying that the fast wheel speed would not allow the weights to keep up with the wheel. And some forum members here have said that a fast wheel speed will pin weights to the wheel rim. Bessler warns about making assumptions.

[rlortie]

Jim,

Just a thought; If I hold a four pound weight inward, lets say with centripetal force of a warped/elongated board. Which in turn is attached to a lighter weight via rope and pulley, and the lighter weight is allowed to swing out utilizing Cf to gain force. will not the lighter weight lift the heavier?

Ralph

[cloud camper]

OK Jim, so then you're saying all these clues I listed about the weights rising and falling were just JB restating Wagner's false ideas about the wheel or are mistranslations?

Also, why did you limit your search on rising weights to just John Collin's PM book and Wagner's two critiques? Why not AP, GB, DT and PV?

[jim_mich]

Ralph, as usual, your description is confusing.

If I hold a four pound weight inward,

If you hold a four pound weight inward on a rotating wheel, you are going to get very dizzy.

You seem to be saying a warped board is keeping a weight from flying outward, and the warped board has an attached rope that connects to a lighter weight by way of a pulley, and CF of the lighter weight moves the lighter weight outward pulling the rope over the pulley, moving the warped board, and thus lifting the four pound weight. And you ask if the lighter weight can lift the heavier weight. Of course it can, if the rotational speed is fast enough and if the 4 pound weight is not moving and thus has no CF. But it takes a substantial rotational speed for a 1 pound weight to lift a 4 pound weight.

At 12 inch radius, a 1 pound weight must move at 109 RPM just to cause 4 pounds of CF. And that will simply balance against the 4 pound weight. Extra force is needed to cause motion of the 4 pound weight. At about 153 RPM the CF of a 1 pound weight will be about 8 pounds, and thus it can lift the 4 pound weight at about the speed that a weight will fall at.

At 24 inch radius the minimum speed needs to be about 77 RPM and about 108 RPM to cause 8 pound of CF.

At 126 inch radius (5.5 foot) the minimum speed needs to be about 34 RPM and about 47 RPM to cause 8 pound of CF.

If both weights are riding the rotating wheel, then you will have significant problems getting a 1 pound weight to lift a 4 pound weight using CF.

The 1 pound lifting four pounds was Bessler's way of telling Wagner he was crazy to think Bessler's wheel was rotated by rising and falling weights. Bessler was saying that such a concept of rising and falling weights would require a 1 pound weight to lift 4 pounds in order to produce the rotational torque of Bessler's wheel.

[jim_mich]

Why not AP, GB, DT and PV?

But I did search PM-AAMS, AP, and DT. I do not know what you mean by 'PV'. What you quote as coming from PV is actually from DT and is also quoted in from PM-AAMS.

I do not have a copy of GB, Grundlicher Bericht, so I cannot search it. I need to buy a copy from John. Portions of GB have been quoted in the forum and I think also in PM-AAMS.

How does the weight apply its weight vertically to the axis, which in its turn must also move without the weight descending itself?

I've read this quote a number of times and it makes no sense. I assume the translation is wrong. If a weight applies its weight vertically to the axis, then this implies that the weight-force is straight downward toward the axis, which would not cause any rotation. So obviously there is something incorrect with the way this is worded. Weight force would need to be applied downward on the rim, or at a right angle to axis.

By the way, I did not say ALL the clues you listed were JB restating Wagner's false ideas. I strongly suggest you not put words in my mouth. Each writing should be looked at individually as to what it actually says and under what circumstances it was written.

[jim_mich]

one or another of them must apply its weight vertically to the axis, which in its turn will also move'.

OK, I tracked this one down. It came originally from PM-AAMS.

Both of the following quotes are from PM-AAMS...

these weights are the essential parts and constitute perpetual motion itself; as from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to placed together, so arranged that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wondrous speedy flight, one or another of them must apply its weight vertically to the axis, which in its turn will also move'.

'Unlike other automata, . . . . these weights . . . are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and are so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or another of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move'.

The second quote (at right angles) is the correct one.

PS, this new computer of mine is fabulous. I can search all the memory in the computer for a phrase of a title in about 1 minute.

[cloud camper]

Ooops - Sorry Jim.

But now since you have researched these clues so thoroughly, could you state which of these clues are NOT JB restating Wagner's false ideas?

Also, with your correct translation:

Unlike other automata, . . . . these weights . . . are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and are so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or another of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move'.

Could you state how the weight applies its weight at right angles to the axis and begins moving the axis without descending itself?

And why does he say "one or another of them" (but not both)? I have never seen this part of the clue discussed.

[rlortie]

Jim_Mich,

If you hold a four pound weight inward on a rotating wheel, you are going to get very dizzy.

Yes I suppose I would, that is why I stated a warped board as the centripetal force holding it in. I also now attempt to clarify that the rope is attached to the weights and not the warped board, which stays stationary with and in relation to the revolving wheel.

I succeeded in getting your response, that yes, it is possible to lift four pounds with one pound providing you have the proper velocity and or diameter, one related to the other.

Now consider that both weights weigh four pounds balancing the machine when static. Give it a push and one weight by CF is pulled out at a tangent raising the attached weight of equal value. they trade places and now the pulling Cf weight becomes centripetally confined, its paired partner now does the pulling.

If one pound can lift four then four pounds should raise four pounds very quickly. iMO quick enough to compensate for the fact that the pulley is descending with the wheel rotation.

By using two pulleys indexed as per the AP wheel depiction. The raising weight will reach the circumference at 12:00 while the paired weight is settling on its warped board.

Thank you!

Ralph

[cloud camper]

.

There are many examples where superior speed of action wins out. For example,
A general has an army far more mobile than his enemy's. He rushes a huge force to a particular point in the line for a breakthrough. Lacking the same mobility his enemy cannot defend against this.

The Keenie oscillates between balanced and dynamically unbalanced.

Frank, this example is highly appropriate and helps me understand my BW concept even better.

I hope you stick with this idea. I wish I could address the Keenie better but this is the exact concept that allows my BW simulation to run.

The impacts in the BW are critical to this concept as they allow the weights to quickly change direction 90 degrees and begin retracting to the balance/reset position with little energy expended, meanwhile retaining most of the inertia in the wheel by the time it reaches the balance position.

This is the agile, more mobile force reacting quickly as in your example.

I believe this is the Euler force in operation as the falling and impacted weight gives up it's inertia to the wheel when it changes direction. At this point, inertia is "trapped" in the wheel and cannot be retrieved for conservation purposes.

Without the impacts, the necessary 90 degree direction change could not be accomplished without expending a huge amount of energy against CF, destroying any possible advantage.

This probably works the same in the Keenie although the Keenie seems to be a 2 cycle process.

My BW concept is a 4 cycle. We all know 2 cycle engines are finicky beasts!

Go Frank go!

[jim_mich]

And why does he say "one or another of them" (but not both)? I have never seen this part of the clue discussed.

Such a simple concept, that I do not know why you ask why.

many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time.

[cloud camper]

No worries Jim

By your refusal to answer my questions you have provided the clarification I was seeking.

I have no other questions.

Have a nice weekend!

[getterdone]

Jim said

I've read this quote a number of times and it makes no sense. I assume the translation is wrong. If a weight applies its weight vertically to the axis, then this implies that the weight-force is straight downward toward the axis, which would not cause any rotation. So obviously there is something incorrect with the way this is worded. Weight force would need to be applied downward on the rim, or at a right angle to axis.



Jim, I've been saying for the last 4 years that this IS possible. I've provided some pics ,and tryed to discribe to the best of my ability how to acheive it.

It'll be possible for me to get back in the shop in a week, if you need a demo to be convinced, no problem.

We can hook up on Live Messanger or Skipe

Leo

[christo4_99]

In light of some recent developments I felt this thread should be brought back to life.

[thx4]

Merci Christo4_99,
Alors gravité ou pas, ?
Il est facile de vérifier que passé une certaine vitesse la gravité n'intervient pratiquement plus. La force centrifuge colle au parois les poids supposés faire le moteur, donc plus de moteur, à moins que la roue décélère et réaccélère suivant un certain seuil, je pense que les témoins nous auraient fait un commentaire dans ce sens...
Selon moi la seule réalité plausible (ce sur quoi je travaille), la roue ne tourne pas à la même vitesse que le moteur intérieur. Moteur qui lui, tourne lentement pour les raisons évoquées plus haut. Donc avec une astuce géométrique bien précise, la gravité devrait augmenter le potentiel cinétique (je n'ai pas dit énergie).
La roue principale celle qu'on voit devient un disque d'inertie qui lisse tous les à-coups possible, et donne l'illusion d'être active par elle même qui selon moi n'est pas le cas.
Il n'en reste pas moins que le plus dur reste a faire. :)

Thank you Christo4_99,
So gravity or not ?
It's easy to see that after a certain speed, gravity is practically non-existent. The centrifugal force sticks to the wall the weights supposed to make the engine, therefore no more engine, unless the wheel decelerates and re-accelerates according to a certain threshold, I think that the witnesses would have made us a comment in this direction...
In my opinion, the only plausible reality (which I'm working on) is that the wheel doesn't turn at the same speed as the internal engine. The motor itself turns slowly, for the reasons given above. So, with a precise geometrical trick, gravity should increase the kinetic potential (I didn't say energy).
The main wheel, as seen here, becomes a disc of inertia, smoothing out all possible jolts and giving the illusion of being active on its own, which in my opinion is not the case.
Still, the hardest part remains to be done. :)