Mann Gravity Mover -- RESEARCH FINDINGS (by P.Stroud)

[AB Hammer]

path_finder

For some reason, I can't get your movies to play.


Alan

[path_finder]

Dear ABhammer,
The reason could be: your Internet browser does NOT have the appropriate add-on plugin able to read the *.WMV video files (when your browser see a *.WMV file, it does not know what to do with).
In that case the best way is to right click on the link and to download the file on your local hard disk.
Then you can open you favorite video reader on this downloaded file.
If it does not work again, abandon your oldies and download VLC, the best reader of the world (compatible Windows, Linux, Mac-OSX, etc) here:
http://www.videolan.org/
Click on the appropriate button (depending of the operating system you are using).

[path_finder]

Just a small flash-back on the vertical twin plates animation.
Suppose the middle disk is the rotating wheel (linked to the external viewable frame).
At the center of this disk are two metallic cup (diameter 1 inch), each one located on one side, at a distance of 2 inches from the center of the middle disk, but located in phase opposition (p.e. one at 9:00 the other at 3:00 when the wheel is stopped).
Then we use these two hollow cups as receptacle for the end of each red axle (very sharp at this end, like for a top in horizontal position).
Now the crazy thing is to create the wobbling motion of each rotating disk.
This is not a difficult mechanism: very close from the cup (about 10 inches) we put an homokinetic join on the red axle at each side. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant-velocity_joint
(Remember Cardano was living at that time) But a simple iron sphere inside a ring and with some grease can be sufficient (the wobbling angle will be very small).
And for the completion of the mechanism, the red axles will be inside an hollow drum (linked with the frame and therefore grounded).
The end of the red axle will be inserted to an eccentric disk (less than the diameter of the hollow tube).
With all this assembly we got now two big tops back-to-back where the vertical gravity is about suppressed: the kinetic energy can do the job, with a minimal precession.
The two tops will try to correct the precession, the only way being to let rotate the middle disk. Et voilà.

[path_finder]

I made a small drawing for a better understanding.
Note the presence of the two pillars (in blue) connected to the roof and the floor: a mandatory because the 'walking washmachine travel', without a very rigid attachment to the ground.

May be the spherical joins are not necessary, if the two cups are strong enough...

[path_finder]

I apologize. I made an error in my explanation above.

the red axles will be inside an hollow drum (linked with the frame and therefore grounded)

This must be replaced by: the red axles will be inside an hollow drum (itself linked with the frame and therefore rotating with the wheel)
(On the hollow drum was attached the rope used by Bessler for the lift-up of the stones).
So far the eccentric small disk must be grounded, and with the rotation of the wheel the red axle will wobble around the main axis (in light green).

[path_finder]

Dear all,
I'm a little bit surprised by the poor level of interest of this forum for one of the major concept of the gravity domain: the top.
The design above suggested for the Bessler wheel is based on TWO back-to-back tops, with an horizontal wobbling axis.
This idea is not only an intellectual elucubration.
There are a lot of coincidences:
- Remember an important clue not very taken in account until now: the twisted characters in MT138
(see again here:http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=7614)
suggesting a rotation of each primemover (in the same direction).
- Somewhere Bessler said it can work also horizontally (approximatively recorded).

The japanese patent (documented by pstroud above) can be easily cancelled by the patented works of Mr HAMEL where the rotating parts are driven by some magnets arranged in the same circular manner.
See here this pertinent site:http://www.linux-host.org/energy/shamel3.htm and in particular the pictures at about the middle of the page.
The replication of this works has been made by Jean-Louis NAUDIN in 1997
see here http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/hfrnrgen.htm
and in particular the animation here
http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/h45banm.gif
representing the device wich disappeared in the outer space so many times during the experiments of Mr HAMEL.
Note that the Hamel's design is based on THREE tops back-to-back.

After detailed review of the Gurbakhsh's design you can recognize a double axis of rotation with an angle between.
His patent is not clear (and may be he was NOT successful but went only to legally lock the concept), but I would be not surprised if his final design was based on two rotating parts (like two tops back to back).

My suggested design is perhaps not exactly conform with the building of Bessler.
An possible improvement is perhaps coming from the use of the springs (not present in my drawing): the two central cups (or better a single common cup for the both 'tops like' parts) can be attached to the rim by a set of springs, much more mobile than a small rigid diameter rod. Who knows.

I would be interested by anyone here on this forum aware with this multiple top concept (a new thread needed?)
May be Mr Kenneth Berendt arrived at the same step and switched on the UFO technology?

[Unbalanced]

A very intriguing concept Pathfinder. I have been working with the concept of precessional wobble for a while. There is the "appearance" of a direct
violation of law of mechanical angular momentum conservation.

There is a misconception that the gyroscope rotor spin has to slow down to supply the energy for the motion of the precession, but it really does not. The rotor can spin forever at its original rate, except for air friction and shaft bearing friction slowing it down.

Given that the rotor spin rate is not affected (which is true, except for friction and air resistance) when the gyro is first released it actually accelerates up to its precessional speed. It happens really fast. The Precessional motion STARTS OUT WITH ZERO KINETIC ENERGY, but a moment later, it has a very measurable kinetic energy.

That energy had to come from somewhere, The answer to this is that it turns out that the Euler Equations show that that acceleration of the precession motion causes the entire body of the gyroscope to lower a very small fraction of an inch. The [Kinetic] energy of the precessional motion actually came from the [Potential] energy of the height of the gyroscope weight in the Earth's gravitational field.

I believe that this kinetic energy of the precessional motion can be directed to the rotational energy needed to propagate motion. I believe also that this can be achieved under 30-rpm within the dimensions of a 12-ft diameter wheel, given a substantial enough flywheel mass. This is represents the most promising avenue I have explored yet. It is the only avenue that doesn't boil down to boot-strapping that I have seen.

If I am not mistaken, Bessler never referred to his wheel as a gravity machine but rather a "motion machine."

I believe you are on the correct path and this concept should be embraced and refined by all who are seriously devoted to this endeavor.

Reference:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZTnxQG ... 22&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poinsot%27s_construction

[dlbeeson]

@Preston and Ralph,

Please forgive if this is the wrong topic, and suggest correct location, but I found your name here.

You both have very nice models of the Buzzsaw Wheel.

Have either of you (or anyone else) tried the following setup?

8 weights all on right side of inner wheel.
4 weights on left side of outer wheel.

Both wheels turn CW.
Outer wheel geared to be double speed of inner wheel.

At exactly the same time,
At TopDeadCenter,
a Weight drops from outer to inner wheel.
At BottomDeadCenter,
a weight drops from inner wheel to outer wheel.


While it is counter-intuitive to use the inner wheel (with the shorter lever arm) as the driver, note that the un-named inventor keeps the gullets very short, approximately 7 percent of the inner lever-arm length.

If he was counting on longer lever arm for more torque, very long gullets would give more torque, with the weights moving out from the short inner wheel diameter minus half the gullet, to the longer I.D. of the outer wheel, plus half the gullet.

But he kept the gullets as short as possible to hold the axle of the weights only.

Then the outer wheel would be the weight relocater, receiving weights from the bottom, where they fall in at BDC, and delivering them to the TDC where they fall into the inner wheel.

So at the instant of transfer (top and bottom simultaneously), there are 3 weights on the left going up, and 7 on the right going down.

But other than that instant of transfer (with the top and bottom weights not adding any torque because of Zero lever arm), there are ALWAYS 4 weights on the left, being raised by the 8 descending weights on the right.

The "spring lever" ring on the inner wheel would be designed to either keep the weights in position until the right moment for exchange, or push them out with axles against the outer wheel, to overcome the centrifugal force pushing the weights outward from the center.

Has anyone tried this setup with a model?

Dan

[Unbalanced]

Hello dlbeeson,

I would have to resurrect my model of this wheel to really analyze the configuration you describe but here is my initial thought on this arrangement:

Your weights are arranged "8 weights all on right side of inner wheel.
4 weights on left side of outer wheel." with a 2 to 1 gear ratio. This is a balanced configuration. 2 to 1 weights + 2 to 1 gearing = stasis.

[pstroud]

@dlbeeson

Yes, the very first test with my replica was with 8 going down on red and 4 rising on the yellow with a 2:1 gear ratio.

The wheel was balanced and would not turn on its own free energy.

Preston

[dlbeeson]

@pstroud and Unbalanced,

Thank you both. How very unobservant of me to ignore the gearing cancelling the weight difference.

Thank you for saving me the money of building it.

Good luck to both of you on your endeavors.

Dan

[rlortie]

dlbeeson,

You asked Preston and I for input regarding the "Buzzsaw".

I believe Preston and Unbalanced have answered your question. I only add this, to bring to your attention, that I believe in corresponding to any posts when my name is mentioned.

One might believe that making the inner wheel gullets deeper, reducing leverage would be of significant help, it is not. All you are doing is concentrating more weight closer to the axle. This is the "Height for width" problem which I refer to as a "syndrome" and is the failure of 99% of all designs.

Ralph

EDITED: change weight for width.

[dlbeeson]

@rlortie,
Thank you for your response. Yes, the longer gullets were the next thing on my mind. However, staying true to what is left of the original inventor's working design seems the best way to solve the remainder of the puzzle.

Dan