This is from a crop circle dream I had. I know, laugh it up.
Anyway, I read something with JB about the nearest leg and foot of a runner. Rotate image 90 degrees. See.
Would this work?
Moderator: scott
re: Would this work?
Hi Jessica,
Welcome to BesslerWheel.com and thanks for your post. Bessler did say that a revelation came to him in a dream. Unfortunately, variations of this particular idea tend to balance out at about the 45 degree mark, as shown below.
But thanks again for sharing and good luck! Hope you'll keep us posted,
Scott
Welcome to BesslerWheel.com and thanks for your post. Bessler did say that a revelation came to him in a dream. Unfortunately, variations of this particular idea tend to balance out at about the 45 degree mark, as shown below.
But thanks again for sharing and good luck! Hope you'll keep us posted,
Scott
- Attachments
-
re: Would this work?
At the angle which you placed it the top left pivot would have already started to collaspe and the bottom right would have started to collapse as well.
re: Would this work?
can someone give us a bit more detail on how this is meant to function?
Thanks,
Trev.
Thanks,
Trev.
re: Would this work?
Hi Jessica;
Great drawing! I think the general concept is familiar in that you have a weight(s) farther out on the descending side and then being brought closer to the axis on the upswing. In an elliptical path (as it follows in this case; [with one foci at the axis/axle]) this will work if there is a perfectly balanced gravitational force amongst the components (neglecting friction). Since the gravitational forces involved on a small scale (with respect to each of the weights for example) is negligible, perpetual movers attempt to implement springs or some other input to facilitate the 'in and out' action required ('in and out action' of course referring to closer and farther away from the axle).
I believe in most cases (including the one you have provided), cetrifugal & cetripetal forces balance/offset and do not contribute towards a solution.
Trev, maybe the modified image here will help?
--Patrick
Great drawing! I think the general concept is familiar in that you have a weight(s) farther out on the descending side and then being brought closer to the axis on the upswing. In an elliptical path (as it follows in this case; [with one foci at the axis/axle]) this will work if there is a perfectly balanced gravitational force amongst the components (neglecting friction). Since the gravitational forces involved on a small scale (with respect to each of the weights for example) is negligible, perpetual movers attempt to implement springs or some other input to facilitate the 'in and out' action required ('in and out action' of course referring to closer and farther away from the axle).
I believe in most cases (including the one you have provided), cetrifugal & cetripetal forces balance/offset and do not contribute towards a solution.
Trev, maybe the modified image here will help?
--Patrick
- Attachments
-
re: Would this work?
Patrick may disagree with me here, but I believe that this example falls into a broad category of unworkable designs I call "trading vertical for horizontal distance." MT is literally full of them.
Sure, a design like this will create a positive imbalance through a certain portion of the wheel's revolution. But if the inner weights are heavy enough to cause the lifting described (at ~45 degrees), then the inner weights themselves will necessarily cause a corresponding negative imbalance through a subsequent portion of the wheel's revolution.
These are just my opinions, but I assure you that a fair amount of experimenting will convince just about anybody of these generalities...
But... :-) a principle like this just might be combined with another, or modified somehow. Who knows? So please keep working on your ideas...
Best,
Scott
Sure, a design like this will create a positive imbalance through a certain portion of the wheel's revolution. But if the inner weights are heavy enough to cause the lifting described (at ~45 degrees), then the inner weights themselves will necessarily cause a corresponding negative imbalance through a subsequent portion of the wheel's revolution.
These are just my opinions, but I assure you that a fair amount of experimenting will convince just about anybody of these generalities...
But... :-) a principle like this just might be combined with another, or modified somehow. Who knows? So please keep working on your ideas...
Best,
Scott
Last edited by scott on Fri Jan 02, 2004 4:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
re: Would this work?
Hi all, Happy New Year everybody!!.
Great to see some more ideas on trying to solve Jb's riddle. I must however agree with Scott on this one. I unfortunately go one step further. I reckon that no matter whatever single or combined arrangement you try to put together inside a closed isolated system, where gravity is known to be acting on both sides, you will always end up with a balanced wheel. That seems to be the (current) LAW. Crikey, thats going to narrow it right down. You may disagree and thats okay.
As said in another post, Jb indicated that whoever tries to create the overbalanced wheel will fail. (See Machinen Tractate!) The man himself seems to acknowledge this (current) LAW!. This statement is what always makes me pull my hair out!!. If the wheel rotated as claimed historically, then surely an imbalance of some description must of been occurring. Or was it? Also, where and what was the energy coming in for this wheel to turn by itself? Was it gravity or something else? We all want to believe it was gravity. I do. But I just don't know. Oh and of course, it was so simple a carpenters boy could build it. (oh maaan!!!) Without a doubt the man was a great genius or another great trickster. And there's plenty of the latter. Oh no! my frustration is rearing it's ugly head again. LOL. Is there hope? Just my opinion. Bye!.
Great to see some more ideas on trying to solve Jb's riddle. I must however agree with Scott on this one. I unfortunately go one step further. I reckon that no matter whatever single or combined arrangement you try to put together inside a closed isolated system, where gravity is known to be acting on both sides, you will always end up with a balanced wheel. That seems to be the (current) LAW. Crikey, thats going to narrow it right down. You may disagree and thats okay.
As said in another post, Jb indicated that whoever tries to create the overbalanced wheel will fail. (See Machinen Tractate!) The man himself seems to acknowledge this (current) LAW!. This statement is what always makes me pull my hair out!!. If the wheel rotated as claimed historically, then surely an imbalance of some description must of been occurring. Or was it? Also, where and what was the energy coming in for this wheel to turn by itself? Was it gravity or something else? We all want to believe it was gravity. I do. But I just don't know. Oh and of course, it was so simple a carpenters boy could build it. (oh maaan!!!) Without a doubt the man was a great genius or another great trickster. And there's plenty of the latter. Oh no! my frustration is rearing it's ugly head again. LOL. Is there hope? Just my opinion. Bye!.
re: Would this work?
First, I want to welcome JessicaL as who I think is the first woman to ever research PMM. Really, the disproportion is weird...
Second, I really want a quote of the paragraphs around and including that overbalanced comment by Bessler.
Third, I'm afraid I agree with the rest.
Second, I really want a quote of the paragraphs around and including that overbalanced comment by Bessler.
Third, I'm afraid I agree with the rest.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
re: Would this work?
He also said that as long as the weights remained out of the center of gravity the wheel turned.
The center of gravity of a weighted wheel is still its center, or axle in this case, if it is balanced.
If the weights are out of COG the wheel HAS to be imbalanced.
He's real good at contradicting his own statements, being an "eloquent speaker".
Regards
grim
The center of gravity of a weighted wheel is still its center, or axle in this case, if it is balanced.
If the weights are out of COG the wheel HAS to be imbalanced.
He's real good at contradicting his own statements, being an "eloquent speaker".
Regards
grim
re: Would this work?
Hi All, In the example above where a wheel is segmented (3,4,5,6,7,8 etc) the wheel rim will turn first thru a positive torque area (+ve 1/2 segement) thru neutral to negative torque area (-ve 1/2 segement). The wheel settles down at the neutral position after rocking back & forth somewhat into the "position of least potential energy". (I think Darren H coined that particular fine phrase). They then tend to suffer from Mr Tims "keel effect" as a result whereby the COG is below the fulcrum/axle.
Sooo... how might JB have done it ? However he achieved it, outwardly it had the same result as a traditional unbalanced wheel design! i.e. whether the continuous rotation was caused by a hitherto unknown (unrecognised more likely) effect of Newtons Laws (eg intertia example I posted a few days ago) on a ... balanced wheel design ... or whether he achieved the overbalancing by literally creating an unbalanced wheel design. The more I go over & over this the more I tend to think that Stevins was right. Paraphrased - If a segmented wheel rotates thru one geographical segment and the wheel looks exactly like it did before it started then the sum of the +ve & -ve torque areas are equal/zero.
I'll talk to Rainer/Tinhead (I need his help - I'm such a phillistine) in the next few days about posting an old design that I call the "floppy disk". It seems to achieve a constant out of balance arrangement but ends up with the CoG below the Axle & so becomes what is effectionally know as a "zero runner". Some of you may be interested ! BTW it is on WM2d so I'll post a jpg. or something.
Almost forgot ... so how do I think he did it ... well I think CF forces would have immobilised the weights inside the wheels at their outward furtherest points from the axle, at the recorded RPM's, so I believe (at this point in time) that he achieved overbalancing by opening & closing the spokes like a fan (proud as a peacocks tail). This would have the effect of making the wheel top-side heavy which would cause it to rotate to where the COG was level with or below the fulcrum/axle. Now just what mechanism he used to achieve that keeps me well occuppied - even my dreams to bring us complete circle :-)
Fletch
Sooo... how might JB have done it ? However he achieved it, outwardly it had the same result as a traditional unbalanced wheel design! i.e. whether the continuous rotation was caused by a hitherto unknown (unrecognised more likely) effect of Newtons Laws (eg intertia example I posted a few days ago) on a ... balanced wheel design ... or whether he achieved the overbalancing by literally creating an unbalanced wheel design. The more I go over & over this the more I tend to think that Stevins was right. Paraphrased - If a segmented wheel rotates thru one geographical segment and the wheel looks exactly like it did before it started then the sum of the +ve & -ve torque areas are equal/zero.
I'll talk to Rainer/Tinhead (I need his help - I'm such a phillistine) in the next few days about posting an old design that I call the "floppy disk". It seems to achieve a constant out of balance arrangement but ends up with the CoG below the Axle & so becomes what is effectionally know as a "zero runner". Some of you may be interested ! BTW it is on WM2d so I'll post a jpg. or something.
Almost forgot ... so how do I think he did it ... well I think CF forces would have immobilised the weights inside the wheels at their outward furtherest points from the axle, at the recorded RPM's, so I believe (at this point in time) that he achieved overbalancing by opening & closing the spokes like a fan (proud as a peacocks tail). This would have the effect of making the wheel top-side heavy which would cause it to rotate to where the COG was level with or below the fulcrum/axle. Now just what mechanism he used to achieve that keeps me well occuppied - even my dreams to bring us complete circle :-)
Fletch
re: Would this work?
Hi all, Yes I too would like to welcome Jessica and any other Ladies to join in this discussion. Good to see!
To try and answer Jonathan's question about JB stating that anyone creating an overbalanced wheel would fail, was told to me by a friend ages ago. I personally didn't read it, though I have read bits of the book when it was lent to me. The comment by my friend seemed to always stick in my head. Whether it was part of a greater meaning or something I'm not sure. As Grim rightly says he was an 'eloquent' speaker. It was way back some years ago now when John Collins first sold the book. Back then I thought it was all a bit of a fairy tale. But since then, I try to be of open mind to the possibility of anything, as long as it's logical and it can be reproduced with similar results to the original claim. I think thats all the 'lateral thinking' minds on this website and possibly elsewhere ask for. 'Proof of Principle' is how it goes I think.
Maybe John Collins or some other expert on the book might be able to answer Jonathan's question better than me. I thought the statement was a given, because if not, I certainly don't want to mislead anyone with wishy washy info on my behalf. Thats my opinion. Bye!
To try and answer Jonathan's question about JB stating that anyone creating an overbalanced wheel would fail, was told to me by a friend ages ago. I personally didn't read it, though I have read bits of the book when it was lent to me. The comment by my friend seemed to always stick in my head. Whether it was part of a greater meaning or something I'm not sure. As Grim rightly says he was an 'eloquent' speaker. It was way back some years ago now when John Collins first sold the book. Back then I thought it was all a bit of a fairy tale. But since then, I try to be of open mind to the possibility of anything, as long as it's logical and it can be reproduced with similar results to the original claim. I think thats all the 'lateral thinking' minds on this website and possibly elsewhere ask for. 'Proof of Principle' is how it goes I think.
Maybe John Collins or some other expert on the book might be able to answer Jonathan's question better than me. I thought the statement was a given, because if not, I certainly don't want to mislead anyone with wishy washy info on my behalf. Thats my opinion. Bye!
re: Would this work?
Thank you all for the welcome.
Does anyone know if the drawings on orffyre.com (From MT) are intended to be recreations of JB drawings?
Thanks
JL
Does anyone know if the drawings on orffyre.com (From MT) are intended to be recreations of JB drawings?
Thanks
JL
-
Georg Künstler
- Devotee
- Posts: 1718
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:22 pm
- Location: Speyer, Germany
- Contact:
re: Would this work?
Hi Jessica,
your first design on board was very good, but doesn't work, the second one doesn't work. I don't know if you had read all the clues from Bessler, which Scott has on the discussion board. But the important's clue is the hit on the falling side.
All are tinking a hit must be bad, all are thinking what a waste of energy.
But if on one side, energy is wasted, and on the other side not, than we have an inbalance too. It is an inbalance of energy, not of masses !!
Hope this helps you. Have a look to Georg's ideas here on board, and you see how you can create this inbalance, all you need to solve the riddle is still on board.
Best regards
Georg
your first design on board was very good, but doesn't work, the second one doesn't work. I don't know if you had read all the clues from Bessler, which Scott has on the discussion board. But the important's clue is the hit on the falling side.
All are tinking a hit must be bad, all are thinking what a waste of energy.
But if on one side, energy is wasted, and on the other side not, than we have an inbalance too. It is an inbalance of energy, not of masses !!
Hope this helps you. Have a look to Georg's ideas here on board, and you see how you can create this inbalance, all you need to solve the riddle is still on board.
Best regards
Georg
re: Would this work?
Fletcher, you just might be on to something.
Regards
grim
Regards
grim