Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy

[Fletcher]

This thread will be a record of my personal battle & endeavour to find an Intrinsic Motion Wheel, that could also be rightly called a True Perpetual Motion Wheel.

This, by my estimation, is the story & summary of my thoughts & ideas, somewhat glibly referred to herein as Mechanical Ingenuity verses Entropy.


Whether it has any foundation, truth or substance, as I currently believe, I will leave to the reader & subsequent discussions to determine, as a permanent record.

..............................


Details to follow as time permits.

[jim_mich]

An "Intrinsic Motion Wheel" is a phrase coined here on the forum. It was a translation/interpretation of some Latin words used by Bessler and Wagner. The Latin phrase is "per se", which simply implies the wheel turned itself. Wagner was willing to admit that Bessler's wheel turned itself, and thus was a self-rotating wheel, and thus rotated per se, that is by itself. But then the quarrel between Wagner and Bessler became about the meaning of a perpetual motion. Bessler wrote much about the meaning of PM. But Wagner's claim was simply that perpetual motion was impossible and thus Bessler's wheel could not possibly be a perpetual motion machine. Wagner based his claim on his assumption that Bessler's wheel was an OOB gravity wheel, which even back 300 years ago, it was known by scholars such as Wagner, that gravity can't maintain PM. Thus Wagner looked down his nose at Bessler. Obviously Bessler did not have the university learning that the young Wagner had. Wagner said Bessler's wheel must be a fraud.

The bottom line is that a wheel that rotates per se, intrinsically might also be a PM wheel. But conversely, a PM wheel must by definition rotate per se, intrinsically by itself.

[Tarsier79]

I have seen many Wagners even today. One instance is the idiot who offered the $10,000 prize for perpetual motion, then went to visit Costa's wheel. his basic premise was that perpetual motion wasn't possible, so your wheel that turns perpetually can't be perpetual motion.

[ovyyus]

I was hoping to read about Fletchers new ideas, not more of Jim's old ideas. WTF?

[Fletcher]

Quite right Jim.

A True PMM = an IMM.

An IMM is not necessarily a True PMM.

My contention is that imbalance [seeking gravitational equilibrium], using a single mechanism, drives the machine into motion thru half a rotation in the most simple design, thus gaining momentum & KE whilst losing PE i.e. CoM/CG is lowered to a position of least Potential Energy - this is the engine metaphor & one that we are all familiar with.

The Prime Mover structure & arrangement acts as a Mechanical Switch allowing a change from a state of imbalance & lowered CG to another state of complete wheel balance [instantaneous raised 'effective CG'] thru another half rotation whereafter momentum coasts the wheel to allow the switching to occur again & complete & repeat the cycle.

Cumulatively, in this one mech [cross bar] proposal, the wheel accelerates, then coasts, then accelerates, etc, gaining momentum & KE, to be bled off via various methods [which are unimportant] to do Work.

You could call it "Controlled Real & Virtual CG Displacement".

[rlortie]

Tarsier79,

I do not wish to clutter Fletcher's thread, here is the guy you speak of.

http://u2.lege.net/newebmasters.com__fr ... etest.html

[Fletcher]

Can this work ?

A picture is worth a thousand words.

This was prepared a month ago.

Please read carefully !

[Tarsier79]

Fletcher, nice concept!

I imagine you wouldn't have drawn static pictures without constructing a sim?

Also, I think the driver will only drive between your pictures 2 and 3. Between 3 and 4, the counterbalance is relatively horizontally further out than the driver, creating reverse torque.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher, nice concept!

I imagine you wouldn't have drawn static pictures without constructing a sim?

Also, I think the driver will only drive between your pictures 2 and 3. Between 3 and 4, the counterbalance is relatively horizontally further out than the driver, creating reverse torque.

Thanks Kaine.

Yes, I did construct many sims, & have played with them & altered them just about every which way for 2 years now - I have tried adding secondary OOB systems & used scissor jacks in place of the sliding driver etc - I have used KE rim stop impact, & other variations on the basic theme.

What you see is the basic form, a single cross bar arrangement with a counterweight to balance it [in the RBGS engaged mode] - BTW a second system could grace the opposite end where the Cwt is currently shown for example, or multiple mechs used concurrently.

FYI when the RBGS is locked at or near tdc [i.e. the T-Bar then rotates instead of maintaining its horizontal orientation] the system is unbalanced & drives all the way to bdc at 6 o'cl gaining momentum, velocity & Ke, just like a pendulum would.

There is no reverse torque !

Please feel free to sim it for yourself.

[Tarsier79]

Please see attached my understanding of your diagram.

Your figure 3 I believe balances, and in the additional figure, 3.5 : I believe there is reverse torque. Correct?

[Fletcher]

Let me get back to you Tarsier - a little busy at the moment.

[Fletcher]

Seems you're right Kaine - less shelf life than usual & back to the drawing board - I don't know how I missed that this time around using this configuration - seems you can look at an idea for too long.

Perhaps I'll post up some of the sims where I tried to use the Ke of the sliding driver or shift its weight onto rim stops on the down going side - might be of interest to someone.

[mickegg]

Hi Fletche & Tarsier79


Does this not suggest that the device needs to enter the balanced state again at the point where the counterweight starts to back-torque?

i.e. before bdc?
...perhaps at 3 or 4 o'clock?

Regards

Mick

[Fletcher]

Hi mickegg ..

Yes it does - the trouble with that idea is that the top of the T-Bar is now orientated vertically with the driver at the bottom - if we engage the RBGS again at or around 3 o'cl it will stay in that orientation & not become horizontal again without some intervention to move it to horizontal.

P.S. I'm probably going to look at how much force & energy is required to do this when using a RBGS.

As I have it the driver mass transitions due to Cf's on the horizontal & this can only cope with a slight upward slope at slow RPM, like you might get from a push start for instance.

[mickegg]

Hi Fletcher

Hmm........in that case is there any mileage in replacing the counter weight with a similar dynamic mechanism?

...or 3 at 120 degrees?

You've probably already looked at all the possibilities

Regards

Mick