jim_mich wrote:EC1, you are a Johnny come lately. Your concept of 'surprise!' has been discussed extensively previously on the forum by myself and others. It is nothing new. We 'old timers' are very well aware of such a concept that all devices reduce to either a body rotating about a hinge or an inclined plane. You keep making these stupid assumptions that we are ignorant of these facts. Some of the newbies might be unaware of such things, but I assure you that forum members that have been here since near the inception of the Bessler Wheel forum are very aware of such things. We are not the ignorant boobs that you keep assuming.
See this link from about nine years ago.
i know it's nothing new to you 'old-timers', but when i began to read the link you referenced, i couldn't help but notice one other comment you posted about tommyk's design, from page two (the bolding is mine, the comment has not been truncated):
jim wrote:ovyyus,
Maybe they are two different wheels? Maybe the first didn't work so he went to plan B. I confined my conversation with him to just his current wheel. His overall concept seems to make sense. If the wheel and weights are turning the weights can produce a rotating torque. But I need to verify if gravity can keep the weights swinging. From his picture I know the dimensions of all the components. I know where the angle brackets mount. I think I know where the springs mount. The orientation of the brackets is unknown and would need trial and error or computer simulation.
TommyK has already said his wheel bangs and clacks. So the weights hit each other.
TommyK wants fame and fortune without the fame.
i literally laughed when i got to that point in the thread. i wasn't sure if i needed to keep reading past the point where you explained that there are only two simple machines.
so just so all old timers and newbies are on the same page,
all machines reduce to levers and/or ramps, and combinations thereof. if that makes me a plump wheel gobbling troll, so be it, and make it so.
As far as a lever being the only mechanism, such a statement is only partly true. It depend upon your concept of a lever.
my concept of a lever is the only concept there is. load, effort and fulcrum. depending on where the fulcrum is determines the class of lever - 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. have you discovered a new class?
A lever would be any means whereby motion of one mass causes motion of a second mass. And this fits Bessler's description whereby as one weight moves outward another weight moves inward. Then they swap. This of course requires a leveraging mechanisms of some sort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_machine#History
wiki entry on simple machine wrote:The complete dynamic theory of simple machines was worked out by Italian scientist Galileo Galilei in 1600 in Le Meccaniche ("On Mechanics").[16][17] He was the first to understand that simple machines do not create energy, only transform it.[16]
But you mention the 'prime mover' lifting weights out of balance. Why do you insist upon lifting weights? You involve gravity when you insist upon lifting of weights. I keep explaining that gravity is not a factor. But then you seem to forget and soon you write about my design 'lifting weights'. There is no lifting of weights in my design. Yes weight go round and round and thus some weight rises as other weight falls. But the wheel is balanced and thus the rising negates the falling. So you can forget about the rising and falling of weights. It's as if there is just a single wheel mass.
do you prefer 'shifting', 'levering', ? motion swapping?
you have to have an unbalance of forces to have acceleration. wheels don't accelerate unless the net forces on them are unbalanced. your wheel may be balanced, but it won't accelerate unless it has that. and all the old timers know that in circular motion, the unbalanced force is in the radial direction towards the axis of rotation, the centripetal force requirement. if the force wasn't unbalanced this way, then circular motion doesn't occur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_( ... ugal_force
If an object were simultaneously subject to both a centripetal force and an equal and opposite centrifugal force, the resultant force would vanish and the object could not experience a circular motion. The centrifugal force is sometimes called a fictitious force or pseudo force, to underscore the fact that such a force only appears when calculations or measurements are conducted in non-inertial reference frames.
Bessler's last two wheels were balanced when stationary and they were balanced when rotated slowly. Only when rotated a little faster so that weights were heard to begin moving within the wheel would the weights then 'gain force' from their motions and provide force to rotate the wheel.
Obviously this increased force must come from some source. And I've explained the source of the extra energy on a number of occasions. Maybe you missed those posts?
no, i've seen them, and commented on them.
Maybe you didn't understand?
no, i understand and i also understand why it isn't creating energy.
The extra energy comes by way of 'usable energy'. I know this concept is foreign to most people. James Clerk Maxwell wrote about such a concept way back in 1867. Except that his version involved the motions of individual molecules. His concept was that the gas molecules are all in motion and thus they contained kinetic energy. But their average banging against the walls of a vessel produced an average gas pressure. Maxwell conceived of an entity that became known a Maxwell's Demon, which entity sorted the gas molecules according to their speed, and thus the molecules were sorted into two groups, one containing warmer faster moving molecules, and another group containing colder slower moving molecules. The total heat of the two groups isn't changed by the sorting. But the usable energy is increased
it is? how?
because any simple heat engine could then use the temperature difference to produce mechanical motion, and thus output energy perpetually, as long as the friction heat of the work done is recycled back to the colder gas.
even if a hypothetical system could be rigged to recycle all of its friction, it still doesn't create more heat to replace the heat being used to produce mechanical motion.
Now my PM wheel works upon a similar principle except that it is weight motion that is sorted and transferred quite naturally from slower less energetic weights to faster more energetic weights. This is like having heat transfer spontaneously from a cold object to a warm object. Such a transferring of heat energy is against thermodynamic laws. But the transferring of mechanical motion from slower objects to faster objects does not go against thermodynamic laws.
but it does go against the laws of motion. i'll leave this one for cloud camper or some other troll to discuss.
This is because it is not a transfer of heat. Such a transferring of motion is very rare and not common. It requires a rotating environment. But believe me, it is not an impossible task, such as trying to get heat to move from cold to warmer objects.
My fluid wheel version eliminates any levers.
it relies on the "path"?
Fluid pushes fluid. Thus the motion of one portion of fluid moves another portion of fluid. So this arrangement does act like a very simple leveraging machine.
So you, eccentrically1, keep trolling.
if you insist.
Keep assuming that the forum members here are idiots. But many of us have already been where you're just now starting to tread.
Yes, the concept of motion causing more motion is unusual and hard to understand. But a working perpetual motion must involve some principle that is unusual and not common, else if it were just the common rising and falling of leveraged weights, it would have already have been found long ago.
Just my opinions.
as usual, i'll be under the great bridge of perpetual energy, waiting to gobble up fat, juicy wheels.
