Impact is the Key

[ME]

They all keep repeating that SELF powered motion machine is impossible.

But NO one has said what SHOULD be the minimum physics requirement,hypothetically, to make it possible, in a wildest dream.

Raj

Raj, we all know that the bare-minimum-physics-requirement is the creation of a tiny amount of surplus energy (or 'acceleration' as noted in my first item on my "assumption-list").... we 'only' have to invent something with a mechanical efficiency being 'only' slightly better than ideal.
Solving that 'minimum requirement' is entirely the challenge. It doesn't have to go in circles if you don't like it.

Strange that "THEY" are both blamed for repeating the impossibility-statement as well as failing to give us directions.
Probably the first minimum requirement is to free yourself from whoever "them/they" are: free the energy of your own roaming thoughts... Know that there's a whole city in your mind!.... doesn't automatically imply you'll invent a working self-powered machine in no-time though.

[Georg Künstler]

Here you have a video to discuss,

is it a Jerk, is it an impact, how high is it swing, now you have an observation of an indirect impact.
Now you can study the move.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNygez_Qn8E

Or is it a different form of acceleration ? What is it in your words.

Pass to the board the physical formulars. Is it an upswing of the cylinders, is it an side swing or a combination ?

How big is the pressure or someone said force of the cylinders in the carrier wheel holes ? Define it !!

Have a look to the upper cylinders, they swing more than the lower ones.

[Tim Cochran]

Nice video Georg,
I've been thinking about ways to bias the position of your rolling weights without putting backwards torque on the wheels but it occurred to me that if your carrier wheel has flat edges (not a circle) there would need to be way more than 8 sides or else the rolling weights couldn't tip it over to the next side without some pretty incredible movements.
Just to clarify, if all the rolling weights were all the way to one side as far as they could go, would the carrier wheel roll to the next side with just gravity pushing it?
-Tim Cochran

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Tim,

In the wheel
it will fall over, because it has no solid stand on the ground.
In the hamster Cage, the floor is moving.
Walk on a carpet, and the carpet is pulled, you will fall over.

The indirect Impact causing a move to one side of all cylindrical weights in the carrier wheel, that is causing the imbalance.
The rolling cylinders will be blocked as I had described it already.

[Fcdriver]

All tumbling has to be in positive X Y area. There is only one area that causes acceleration! ,, all others do not! From 12 o’clock to 3 o’clock accelerates, from 3 oclock to 6 o’clock has negative acceleration. Any force put on the wheel causing positive acceleration, has to be applied from 12oclock to 3 o’clock!

[Georg Künstler]

ME wrote:

Solving that 'minimum requirement' is entirely the challenge. It doesn't have to go in circles if you don't like it.

Some months ago I have found a mathematical formula in the internet who described under which condition a Permanent Movement will work.

It will work as a top heavy pendulum.
The formula is used also for the stabilization of the Segways, preventing the fall over.

Anyone interested in this formula ?

[MrVibrating]

I believe impacts are likely necessary as an OU motor is one in which the momentum imparted to the rotor is then shared back with the stator, such that both are accelerated together.

Hence rotor and stator/s rotate around together, and there must be a periodic variation in their relative velocities as a torque is applied between them, accelerating one yet somehow without decelerating the other, before the accelerated mass ('rotor') shares some of its momentum back with the non-accelerated mass ('stator').

Hence these momentum-sharing, speed-equalising impacts are an implicit requirement of an OU motor.. part and parcel of the internal asymmetric inertial interactions it must likewise depend upon..

Remember, nothing in B's designs was "pro forma" (for appearances sake only) - the bangs (like the statorless operation) were a causative linchpin of the energy gain principle..

[IamAllergicToEntropy]

So here are my random unverified assumptions:
- Kinetic energy is defined by mere acceleration;
- Bouncing balls can better explain the operation of an hydraulic ram than rolling cylinders;
- That a jerk is faster than a quickening is not nearly shocking.

I almost feel like I am giving a dissertation in my response. In that I apologize. I also regret that I must now deal with letting my claim "slip out" when I really did not want to. In my defense it's akin to "don't drink and blog". :)

As for your random unverified assumptions:
1. Kinetic energy needs mass. It is basically work, a scalar quantity.
2. Bouncing balls is better than rolling cylinders. It is funny, but I am not sure of your meaning. A hydraulic ram from my understanding is water trapped by a 1 way valve with trapped air acting like the spring in a oscillator. The constant supply of water is necessary to keep the system in resonance. I am NOT a plumber... so that is only my opinion.
3. I can not help to keep thinking abut the movie/TV series "Highlander" about the quickening. Other definitions of quickening is more colorful. ;)

Perhaps not freely, but maybe we could try to change your momentum for a while? :-)

<Silliness OFF>
How can we help to help you to convince yourself?
I guess if you can't CNC the solution then the next best way is to try to proof you current solution wrong.... and hopefully fail at it.
Don't worry, we're all good at failing!

The ever existing dilemma (or riddle): how much are we allowed to know for getting convinced of your solution, but just shy of knowing it.
<Silliness ON>

:-)

Ok, I understand. People have come here Ad nauseam with wild claims. I deserve that. If I was searching for how Bessler did it for years or decades and someone suddenly comes along with an apparent knowledge of physics... well I guess I would have mixed feelings. On the one hand I would be polite and silently in my depression think... yea? Perhaps at the same time thinking extremely pissed... you S.O.B. @&*#!! ;)
First I am not worried. I am very used to failure. In society (at least mine), a Judge always says ignorance of the law does not exclude you from it. So in that point of view, I like to be absolutely thorough before I can start shouting to the highest mountaintops (without nudity) EUREKA!! This is why I must actually build a device to confirm it. Arm chair theories can easily have a mistake. Unfortunately to actually explain/hint how I believe a Bessler's wheel works, I must also reveal it simultaneously. In a way it is mechanically simple, but at the same time it is not at all easy to construct. I am not talking from my disability perspective either. I have no idea what skills a carpenter's apprentice has. Either today and in comparison to 3 centuries ago. However they must have been healthy and had arms like people you see in those old Hercules movies of the 1960's. It is my assumed result of no power tools. In that I feel fortunate.

I also believe if the powers and resources of a state were brought to bear on the problem, it WOULD BE solved. Perhaps it already is? Conspiracy nuts will not like this, but IMO "they" do not care. WHY? I believe the energy density is very low. A conserved mass gravity motor would be quite massive to power a house. I have no idea of even approximate values at this time to a function of scale. (My gut somehow equating to brains?) tells me even with what Bessler made, (useful weight several kilograms) we are probably talking about watts and the energizer bunnie's immediate family. So energy companies have nothing to fear.
I moved beyond the thought experiment stage and went on to basic structural design. I have re-done tests of basic physical knowns, to make sure I am not crazy. Perhaps I am anyway. On the bright side, if I do make an ass of myself, my real name is not here. ;)

So the best I can do ATM is have a check list UNDER the ASSUMPTION it is a gravity wheel.

1. Gravity is a conservative force. With that said, a mass rolling down a "frictionless" hill has the same energy (with no other forces) as a identical mass dropped off a cliff, with the same total difference in vertical height.
2. A overbalance wheel has superposition of forces. (Basically binding forces). It's effect is known as center of mass. From this scenario I can use Stevin's principle, and the more modern version that leads to the conservation of energy. I must infer a mechanical form of Kirchhoff’s rule "without assuming charge".
3. During any kind of force weights must experience reaction and has a summed simultaneous resultant vector from a action (parallelogram law).

IF I have these covered in my list, then that seems like I have some kind of chance. I have seen and read about hundreds of designs and patients. They do have a common theme of not passing my checklist.

From 12 o’clock to 3 o’clock accelerates, from 3 oclock to 6 o’clock has negative acceleration. Any force put on the wheel causing positive acceleration, has to be applied from 12'clock to 3 o’clock!

That is not quite right. Acceleration still occurs until negative potential energy begins. In a wheel that is the point of lowest height relative to Earth's center. The 3 O'clock position to a fraction before 6 O'clock position still accelerates, only mechanically slower because of sine angle.

[Fcdriver]

It’s effect to the wheel, it only accelerates the wheel in certain areas! Yes it is a constant force, but it’s effect on turning the wheel causing the wheel too, accelerate is limited

[Georg Künstler]

Hi IamAllergicToEntropy,

the gravity converter passed your checklist. done.

Here an other example :The simplest way is

http://www.kuenstler-energie.de/index.php?id=29

Click on Wasserrad in Bewegung (Nahaufnahme). to study it.

Here the mass is periodically tried to stop, creating a wave against gravity.

The trying to stop increases the speed of the water. It is no waterwheel, it runs in the water, but the function is different to any other waterwheel.

Maybe you can call is an oscillator.

You can repeat this function in the river again and again.

[IamAllergicToEntropy]

I think I am getting a headache. :)

George do you mean the boat-like thing?
Wasserrad in Bewegung (Nahaufnahme)

I am sorry, I should have said my checklist implies weights in a closed system. Like possibly Bessler's wheel may have done.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi IamAllergicToEntropy,

then what exactly is your requirement. Define the exact conditions !!
I will make a design then of your conditions, because you are not happy with my actual examples.

If you don´t see the 'Jerk' in the Waterwheel, then you overlook some evident part. BTW, the Waterwheel was developed from me to learn some movements which occur in nature.
It is developed from Besslers wheel which you can see "And you still don't understand" or 3 chamber wheel.

The oscillation is repeated every 120 degrees.
The breaking force is used to lift the water suddenly against gravity.
Gravity is then used to accelerate the water again.
The extract of energy with this Toy is free.

Every river is like a tsunami, but you don't see it.
The river has an wave length of x kilometers, and you see only a part of it.
You see it as not dangerous.
Have a look to the tsunami banda aceh. Maybe then you can compare it.

[ME]

I almost feel like I am giving a dissertation in my response. In that I apologize. I also regret that I must now deal with letting my claim "slip out" when I really did not want to. In my defense it's akin to "don't drink and blog". :)

Actually, a dissertation or thesis seems very applicable for introducing any serious perpetual motion idea!
Should at least give us that warm and fuzzy feeling we are part of your discovery or mistake (happens too)...

• A 'thesis' is a supposition of some eminent philosopher that conflicts with the general opinion...for to take notice when any ordinary person expresses views contrary to men's usual opinions would be silly".
  • --Aristotle

yup, in that light, totally applicable for perpetual motion design.

As for your random unverified assumptions:
1. Kinetic energy needs mass. It is basically work, a scalar quantity.
2. Bouncing balls is better than rolling cylinders. It is funny, but I am not sure of your meaning. A hydraulic ram from my understanding is water trapped by a 1-way valve with trapped air acting like the spring in a oscillator. The constant supply of water is necessary to keep the system in resonance. I am NOT a plumber... so that is only my opinion.
3. I can not help to keep thinking abut the movie/TV series "Highlander" about the quickening. Other definitions of quickening is more colorful. ;)

So about my random unverified assumptions:
1. Earlier, IATE wrote:

• Is it possible that the kinetic energy formula is incomplete at some level? Is some indescribable property there that eludes mankind? Extremely unlikely, but the odds I have to admit are non zero.
  http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 470#162470

Earlier, MarchelloE wrote

• Kinetic energy is defined by mere acceleration;

I think I can safely claim that the relation between potential and kinetic energy is just a relation between distance and velocity defined by acceleration; it is independent of mass yet it applies to some mass.
I just wanted to say that ½m•v² is an algebraic consequence of an object's acceleration (or force if you want).
As it cannot get more basic than that, it totally underlines your statement and I wonder as well what might be added to the definition of kinetic energy that may have significant impact on discovering perpetual motion.

2. Earlier Georg Künstler wrote:

• Your jerk is used different.
  a example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_ram
  A stop is causing a lift !! A stop is causing a go ahead !! It allows a Spill !!
  A rolling cylinder in a hole(carrier) make exactly the same move

Earlier, MarchelloE wrote:

• Bouncing balls can better explain the operation of an hydraulic ram than rolling cylinders;

The experiment of bouncing stacked balls ... [in brackets, what I think is similar to a hydraulic ram]
Take a basketball and a tennis ball on top. Drop this stack from a certain height [similar to the pressure head]
The basket ball hits the ground and compresses [Similar to the bounce as a water hammer closing the waste valve]
The tennis ball collides with basket ball [similar to the pressure differential opening the check-valve] and compresses on top of it [as the pressure vessel]
The tennis ball prevented the normal rebound of the basket ball [The basket ball similar to the waste water]
The tennis ball shoots up with an increased velocity because of the impact (approaches 3 times amplification).
Impact is the key here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHS883_P60

3. Earlier, IamAllergicToEntropy wrote:

• A jerk is what it is.

Between acceleration and shock there's a wheel who wants to live forever :-)

Perhaps not freely, but maybe we could try to change your momentum for a while? :-)

<Silliness OFF>
How can we help to help you to convince yourself?
I guess if you can't CNC the solution then the next best way is to try to proof you current solution wrong.... and hopefully fail at it.
Don't worry, we're all good at failing!

The ever existing dilemma (or riddle): how much are we allowed to know for getting convinced of your solution, but just shy of knowing it.
<Silliness ON>

:-)

Ok, I understand. People have come here Ad nauseam with wild claims. I deserve that. If I was searching for how Bessler did it for years or decades and someone suddenly comes along with an apparent knowledge of physics... well I guess I would have mixed feelings. On the one hand I would be polite and silently in my depression think... yea? Perhaps at the same time thinking extremely pissed... you S.O.B. @&*#!! ;)

That was the only part in the whole text I marked as me being serious. :7)
But as far as I see, your "claim" was put very nicely: " I believe I have solved the riddle. Could I be wrong? Possible, but doubtful. "
We seriously had worse claim-attempts on this forum. Reaching the point that this forum was almost the last place on Earth to get notified of Bessler's final vindication because of how obvious this solution apparently was... never heard of that solution. again :-|

One has an idea, but how to share without actually sharing.? That's always difficult. If only we could solve this sharing-dilemma it would be worth gold.
You could just decide to totally ignore that part and just share?
Otherwise there's no other option than to &#916;p/&#916;t it out of you...
:-)

Otherwise you still have to try to find a method for building your thing ("How can we help to help you to convince yourself", so that it may come to a physical device).
Just imagine this headline: "Guy builds mysterious powergenerator out of drinkingstraws and ducttape!".

In a way it is mechanically simple, but at the same time it is not at all easy to construct. I am not talking from my disability perspective either. I have no idea what skills a carpenter's apprentice has. Either today and in comparison to 3 centuries ago.

1. Carpenter's apprentices in those days carved complete art works on basic chairs and throw-away tools (or so I believe). Nowadays even the IKEA-picture-manual appear too difficult for some. While Banksy's art, which was not art, is still being sold as art but gets half-shredded after being sold, making it more art than it never was intended... unless it was…?
I am convinced that three centuries ago 'difficult' and 'simple' had a totally different meanings...
2. Skills of some carpenter, in any period, have no relation with your current design.
Perhaps this is an interesting read: https://thomasguild.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... rkers.html

A conserved mass gravity motor would be quite massive to power a house.

Compare size-vs-power as happened with early house-sized computers versus current gadgets.
Don't worry about inadequacy of ANY perpetual motion machine: that will be resolved eventually. Better worry about the inadequacy of the population to handle it with care.
Start claiming the metric describing Power per Hour [J/s²].

I have re-done tests of basic physical knowns, to make sure I am not crazy.

I hope you realize that once you figured the Proper PMM Methodology (PPMMM) that basic physics will change a bit... and thus, as an immediate effect, impose a risk on that personal reflection (one to think about). You may have guessed: I also checked some physical knows and unknowns: It’s possible I’m completely nuts. (Exhibit A: this reply)

Anywho, good luck with your testing!

[Georg Künstler]

Hi ME,

you are the master of Alpha and Omega,

give the indirect Impact a Chance, look at it in deep.

the rolling cylinder will be lifted and in addition it will create torque.

If you need some more information about it, let me know.

[ME]

Master of Alpha and Omega ??

The master says: "Hmm*...there's a fine balance between Alpha and Omega. At least one of them is chased by perpetual mobilists and at least one of them is futile... As a hint: expectations are not necessarily in order."
* A master is usually expected to utter "Hmm".

As with the hydraulic ram or bouncing balls: of course you can lift something higher up a ramp and then extract torque... but what is the cost of energy?
And with your example, things will not end up higher than its initial starting height; and all while torque still equals the amount of potential energy it had, at best.
Perhaps you need to show your calculus.