Wheel acceleration...

[sleepy]

Hey,
I think the first one directional wheel was the fastest.Which would make sense,as all the leverage could be constantly directed to one side without additional mechanism for counter rotation.Also,I think the wording was closer to"the weights gain force from their swinging",which could mean any number of things,from a weight tracing a simple arc and landing with force,to weights swinging freely within the structure.However,it has been my experience that the longer the path the weight travels,the less likely it will provide rotational force.

[bluesgtr44]

Sorry for the big delay...been very busy at the ol' silicon mines.

George, the weights in the series of drawings I posted are all attached by rope...that weight in the lower left quadrant is "swinging"...and it has a force. Not that that is anywhere near a solution, I understand that. But, you just gave me a thought with your statement and after looking at your thread, I think I have an idea to try...just need to get a little time to really look at it.

I have ordered PPM/AMS and also A/P. Just waiting for delivery and will probably have a bit of reading to do.

Steve

[ken_behrendt]

"Certain disposed weights, once in rotation, gain force from their own swinging" is a line that I have spent many an hour pondering. I agree that the key word here is "swinging"...what, exactly, did Bessler mean by using that word...has it even be translated correctly?!

The most obvious answer is that the swinging is done by a weight attached to a lever arm. This therefore implies a somewhat sudden change in the position of the weights at key position inside of one of his rotating wheels that shifts the c.g. of all eight weights to the descending side of the wheel. However, every conceivable arrangement of weights, levers, and, eventually, springs that I have tried or analyzed has failed to achieve the necessary shift to result in PM.

Since I find in EXTREMELY improbable that Bessler's wheels were a hoax, I am therefore led to the conclusion that I have not yet been lucky enough to stumble upon the design he used.

However, I remain bothered by Count Karl's assertion that the design Bessler used was SIMPLE. IF it was, indeed, so simple that a "carpenter's boy" could build it, then why has not one of the, perhaps, tens of thousands of inventors in the almost 300 YEARS since Bessler's times been able to duplicate one of his wheels?

The only answer I have for this disturbing question is that, although simple, the design Bessler used was VERY unique. It is something that would never occur to anybody who was not prepared to do a lot of thinking "outside the box". The person who eventually duplicates Bessler's invention will do it by completely ignoring ALL past PM designs and trying something never used before...it might even be a design whose functionality, at first and even second glance, would appear to be a physical impossibility.

So, if any of you guys out there are working on something that has not yet been tried in any form, but which everybody is telling you will never work...then keep right on working on it...you're probably moving in the right direction!

ken

[Vic Hays]

Ken,

The answer to Bessler's wheel is not a state uf unbalance. I am convinced that that concept will not work. His wheels may have appeared to be unbalanced and may have even been unbalanced, but the principle is to utilize gravity for power, not to swing weights back and forth.

I think there are some including myself who are closing in on a working principle and soon it may be revealed.

Think about it this way. What if the weights were on the descending side for a longer amount of time than the ascending side and were able to apply their full torque for that amount of time? Fast up and slow down.

[graham]

Fast up and slow down.

Yes Vic there is a direct relationship between gravity and time . A mass will be accellerated by a given amount, in a given amount of time.
Time is the key here and the solution will have weights that are accelerated by some type of spring on the upside of the wheel . That's why all the banging of weights was heard by those who witnessed his wheels running.

Good luck and keep those ideas "spinning".

Graham

[coylo]

I'm not so sure. The energy required to accelerate and then decelerate weights in a "fast up slow down" concept would be the same energy required to shift the weights in an overbalanced arrangement. So, they would be similar in that respect. So I guess I'm saying that if OB dosen't work, the chances are FUSD won't either.

I feel people have given up on overbalancing because of the heartbreak of so many failures (using overbalancing), but thats no reason to rule it out all together.

[sleepy]

We have to continue to approach this with an open mind.It appears that all of us,(myself included),have assumed many things about Bessler and PM in general.So there were eight "impacts" per rev.We assume it means eight moving weights.Could just mean eight weights around the perimeter which were used to achieve balance and momentum,and not necessarily drive the wheel.Could mean 16 weights in pairs,but only one per pair contacts the wheel.Could be 4 weights each hitting twice per rev.Every time we assume that we know something for certain about the wheel,we shut our eyes to many other possibilities.

[graham]

I feel people have given up on overbalancing because of the heartbreak of so many failures (using overbalancing), but thats no reason to rule it out all together

Hi Coylo , I know you favor the overbalancing idea because you've said it before in your posts. I for one though have abandoned this approach because for me I can't think of any arrangement that could possibly work .
Overbalancing implies using gravity directly and all the history of failures in this field would seem to verify that this has been "done to death".

An imbalance in the time (ie. slowing down and then speeding to catch up) of a weight on the ascending side of the wheel would create different conditions than on the descending side.

I suppose you could call it an "imbalance of conditions" and I would agree that this would be the case but it is not the same as "overbalancing"

Just my thoughts, that's why we come here ,right ?

Graham

[bluesgtr44]

I have done a little more research and there is an interesting one I had kind of just gleaned across at John's Free-Energy web site. Under "wheel analysis" Math done by Gary Levell and Glenn Presant...there is a calculation for acceleration and the force required to achieve the speed in two rotations. In their matrix they determined that the initial force required to move the wheel to maximum RPM's in 2 revolutions would be about 38 lbs on the descending side. Now, this analysis was done using the information provided for the wheel at Kassel. This wheel achieved a maximum speed of 26 rpm's.

OK...eight weights at 4 lbs. each and the statement was actually that the wheel reached the maximum rotation in 2 to 3 rotations (two would definitely be easier for the math)....sooooo, 32 lbs of force would probably fall within the 2 to 3 rotation range, would it not?


Maybe, just maybe...one could consider that all eight of the weights "NEVER" leave the descending side of the wheel.Hmmm, so how did he do this?

Ken...on a personal note, you and I are after the same thing. The first wheel. It just turned...perpetually...had to tie it down to stop it. I believe you know as well as I do that once you solve the "secret" everything else will come into focus.

Steve

[rlortie]

steve,

If the net weight is 32 pounds, then we have to figure gross weight. It would take an X amount of weight to lift, swing, or lever them back into place. I would think, what ever weight was utilized in doing this would have to be added to your 32 pounds. Figure that out and you have the solution of how to move 4 pounds with one.

Hope this makes sense being from the same college. :-)

Ralph

[bluesgtr44]

Ralph...LOL, as you can see, I had to search out someone who already did the math for me.

I agree with what you are saying, but also consider we have the angular momentum...which is a force. So, if we were able to direct that force it could provide some relief from the "work" it would take to lift the weights. And if we are only dealing with the descending side? I am really having some serious thoughts on this now and can see some of what we agree on with a "pendulum" principle of sorts.

Steve

[Silver Eyes]

I have done a little more research and there is an interesting one I had kind of just gleaned across at John's Free-Energy web site. Under "wheel analysis" Math done by Gary Levell and Glenn Presant...there is a calculation for acceleration and the force required to achieve the speed in two rotations. In their matrix they determined that the initial force required to move the wheel to maximum RPM's in 2 revolutions would be about 38 lbs on the descending side. Now, this analysis was done using the information provided for the wheel at Kassel. This wheel achieved a maximum speed of 26 rpm's.

OK...eight weights at 4 lbs. each and the statement was actually that the wheel reached the maximum rotation in 2 to 3 rotations (two would definitely be easier for the math)....sooooo, 32 lbs of force would probably fall within the 2 to 3 rotation range, would it not?


Maybe, just maybe...one could consider that all eight of the weights "NEVER" leave the descending side of the wheel.Hmmm, so how did he do this?

Ken...on a personal note, you and I are after the same thing. The first wheel. It just turned...perpetually...had to tie it down to stop it. I believe you know as well as I do that once you solve the "secret" everything else will come into focus.

Steve

32 pounds on a descending side would have a hell of a lot of continuous acceleration. Increase increase increase, much faster than the start up r.p.m.s also and doesn't make sense about the small pulley to lift 70 pounds either.

[rlortie]

I agree with what you are saying, but also consider we have the angular momentum...which is a force. So, if we were able to direct that force it could provide some relief from the "work" it would take to lift the weights. And if we are only dealing with the descending side? I am really having some serious thoughts on this now and can see some of what we agree on with a "pendulum" principle of sorts.

steve,

This pendulum approach, as you know has always been my favorite. I do not care if it is inside or outside the wheel. As some strive to duplicate his work, I only wish to discover the physics used in mass or mechanical transference of said weights.

I like the new thread that sleepy has authored "Think twice about what you think you know", and hope it gets lots of response. I believe we can all benefit from input and rebuttal on such a thread.

When the word pendulum is mentioned, most draw an image of the simple pendulum. There is also the Bifilar, Foucault, and torsion pendulum. The torsion pendulum is capable of being stable, neutral and unstable. Thus one can achieve an equilibrium mechanical net force of zero. A little lengthy to go into here, so suggest researching this statement.

Ralph

[bluesgtr44]

Good stuff, guys. Really thinking for the last few days...sad isn't it? Wheel...it's about the wheel. Really consumed with this now.

Silver eyes...increase, increase, increase??? Nope! Think about it! There will always be a restriction. It will be confined to a certain area...the circumference of the wheel and the math involved to ensure that the weights are distributed to accompany this. Go to Johns Free-Energy sight and check the "wheel analysis" section and see what these guys have done with a lot of the information.

Ralph...I totally agree with you on this one. I hope that the people here are not "locked" into a visual concept of the pendulum as it may apply here. As a matter of fact, maybe "pendulum" is not the best description he could have used, but since the basic properties could be that of what one might consider a pendulum...then so be it. He wanted to be secretive, and if the people were going to help him...then "pendulum" it is. See what I'm saying here?

I am waiting for my books to arrive and then maybe I can see things a bit clearer. I still believe I make a very impressionable point with this acceleration idea. If you think about it...it really matters...a lot!

Steve

[Silver Eyes]

Steve,
I'm sorry but it doesn't seem that revelatory to me to try and anylize a wheel based on r.p.m. startup speed when that has a possible variety of factors that also need to be accounted for. There is the total wheel weight plus friction. There are a varitety of ways that that speed can be gotten.
Have you given any consideration to the use of a flail? That's somethin I'm working on right now, using a triangular weight set up where one weight pivots to a lower level when all three are at what would be their centers of gravity, and that changes the combined weights "normal"center of gravity, and ads some kick energy increase to the wheel.