Cracking the nut with Archimedes principal?

[raj]

Chris,
Thank you so much for your kind offer, dear friend.

I don't think I need any advice or help regarding Patent Application, not for UK Patent nor World Patent, because I have first hand successful SELF application experience.

Maybe you could do me a real favour:
Stop saying that trading width for height will NEVER work for just ONCE.

Analyse my painful explanations with a NOVICE eyes, and then tell me what you think with an OPEN unbiased mind.

If you can't do that just forget my request.

Go back to what Bessler is reported to have said:
1. motion of weights.
2. swinging of weights.
3. no external power

If you consider all hundreds of Bessler clues, we will be left with an empty wheel moving/rotating by itself.

Best regards.

Raj

[raj]

This is probably my longest debate in 48 hours on in my five years on this forum.

Raj

[triplock]

Trading height for width in a closed system will never work, no matter the elaboration of design.

What Besslers drawings highlight is the futility of not accepting that fact. You placed your design on here for a judgement , and I have given it to you. That doesn't mean I have a narrowed viewpoint or the inability to conceptualise - I have just learnt to control and meter the output .

As others could testify, I could spit out concepts at quite a disturbing rate !!

Chris

[raj]

Thank you Chris.

Can you refer me to one of Bessler's drawing or anything else that proves your point of view???

I propose this debate closed.

Raj

[triplock]

Blimey, that debate was short-lived Raj ?

Lol, must be a fcking record for me !!

Chris

[raj]

Chris,
My proposal is for closing this width for height debate.

This thread is wide open because further contributions is forthcming.

Expectation of proof of the pudding in the eating runs high.

Raj

[triplock]

Ok my bad..

You're ignoring the elephant in the room to be honest, but such is. I wish you every success nevertheless.

Chris

[raj]

Problem is, I cannot stop here, when gut feeling says I have found something.

Probably a concept testing prototype will bring it to a stop.

That will be learning with hands on the job.

Right???

I'll keep posting openly anything new I come up with this AGW concept.

Raj

[Wubbly]

Raj,
We had a height for width debate 4 years ago in this thread here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... sc&start=0

You might want to read through it and see what has been previously discussed.

If you are a visual person, look at the end of the thread starting here regarding torques and swept angles:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 6299#96299

[Fletcher]

Raj .. please take the time to read Wubbly's posts & thread he referred you to in the post above - you are a 'math person', or was, so can be again - you should be able to understand the logic of what is said & shown.

Think, if you just devoted 5% of the time you'd spent thinking about 'trading width for height' designs over the last 20 years into other ways to create torque without losing PE what a lot of free time you'd have to enjoy your retirement.

Of course, the hardest thing is letting go of what Bessler categorically tells you is a waste of time & effort, & never go back to it because you can't think of anything else - you like puzzles, set yourself a new one that might lead to achieving your goals, but it requires pulling your head from the sand IMO - your belief is very strong so I expect this will be a bit of a problem for you to let go, at first.

In my search for a wheel, I can only think of overbalanced wheel.

I sincerely believe that any self-rotating wheel MUST trade width for height as a prerequisite, for ONLY positive torque can turn a wheel.

With weights driven wheel to get torque for turning, I can't think of any other way than overbalancing wheel by weights motion trading width for height.

Raj

Losing PE (trading width for height) is not the only way to cause torque in a wheel - it happens to be the one way that is most familiar & tried most often, & while it causes torque (equal amounts of positive & negative torque) it fails to sustain a wheels motion because there is no NET positive torque.

P.S. I always scored zero on IQ tests & was told it was for lack of comprehension - I failed the very first question & was disqualified - it said write your name.

[rlortie]

I failed because the very last statement read: "DO NONE OF THE ABOVE."

Which means, when filling out a form or taking a test read it first!

Raj, take the time to read!

[raj]

I am already working on a concept testing build.

This concept testing prototype is 12 cms diameter.

Oh, yes! Only twelve centimeters diameter.

Raj

[raj]

A 12 cms diameter, crude concept testing model

Raj

[raj]

I want to say to everybody who are following regularly all my posts on this forum that:

1. At 70 years old, I am NOT doing all these drawings, designings, postings of my hundreds of ideas (good or bad??), all very time and efforts consuming (both mental and physical) FOR ANY FINANCIAL GAIN.

2. I am happy doing ALL OF THESE, simply because they are keeping active physically and mentally, to enjoy my old age.

3. My aim in participating in the quest of a self-rotating wheel, is to give my ideas FREELY, in return I know I AM ORIGINATOR OF ALL MY IDEAS I present on this forum.
4. Patenting attempts are ONLY ESTABLISHING THAT I THOUGHT OF THAT FIRST.

Raj

[triplock]

Raj,

Looking at your short video of you rotating the device on a stick, what do you suppose it shows ?

Chris