Anyone suffer health problems over this?

[Zhyyra]

Zhyyra, that looks really cool.
Perhaps you know: How heavy does the lever-weight need to be compared to the lazy-tong weight before the lazy-tong shoots up?

Thank you ME.
The little block that you see behind the lead weight on the lever is "slidable" up and down the lever. The lever-joint near the bearing housings is so that the arm can be set at different angles to the center line of the jack arrangement.
So, the answer to your question is. It depends. It depends mainly on three factors, the weight of the weights (ratio of lever-weight to jack-weight), the distance of the lever weight along its lever and the angle at which the lever is set with the jack center line.

[cloud camper]

Johndoe2 - Never gonna work without dem samwiches - just sayin!

[Fletcher]

10,000 programmers, scientists and physicists have tested wm2d.
WOW Fletcher, I did not know that,

I trust the same number of programmers, scientists, and physicists must have tested BOEING softwares.

We just had a Boeing plane going auto-pilot (using computer instructions), nose-diving and killing 100s people.

Computer Glitch?

No Computer Software will do the UNKNOWN which it has not been programmed.

And nobody in the entire world knows the unknown.

Raj

Not comparable raj .. I was once a pilot. I could go into the detail of the actual cause (that's a faulty pitch reading). But the real problem was when the auto-pilot was turned off it didn't turn this additional system off and the pilots couldn't hand fly the jet. They had to pull the circuit breaker in a separate exercise to gain control from the additional software which was doing what it was programmed to do - intervene from a set of input thresholds and push the nose down.

And this system was put in because the engines were apparently repositioned slightly for better fuel economy, which could lead to instability problems in certain situations - hence the extra pitch alarm and automated correction, over and above the redundant systems and pilots already in the aircraft.

This was a step towards full automated flying where the pilots are monitors of the software, driven from a push for better fuel economy. It ended tragically for all concerned, only because the pilots couldn't easily disengage the system when it took control. They rightly assumed that once the auto-pilot was disengaged they would be able to hand fly again - not so. There was another step and little time at low altitude to do it under extreme stress.

So the software did exactly what it was programed to do. I doubt even hundreds put together the additional programing "oversight", and whomever had input (pilots and programmers) didn't anticipate that the root cause of a faulty attitude indicator would not talk with other onboard systems to confirm the reading before taking action, and then couldn't easily be disengaged.

So no glitch in the software. A lack of foresight in the programming and a mind set to head towards automation for better fuel economy by the powers that be. IMO.

[Fletcher]

My original point was that the physics sim programs like WM accurately predict physical behaviour. They use the same rules (Laws) that you do in your head when you design a new wheel variant, except they stick to the rules.

Many of us somehow expect our closed path wheels to produce a result different from what the physics rules and the supporting math say will or will not happen. And we keep doing it, and doing it.

FWIW I say work with the rules, not against them.

Bessler finally realized why all other wheels had failed. They were not exact builds, and could accommodate a ounce of difference here or there, and still keep turning merrily away.

He even, according to him, managed to build a table top wheel (small). You of all people should understand how difficult it is to be exact in measurements and placements at that scale. And still his apparently turned and could be passed around on table tops.

That sounds to me like a wheel with some latitude for inexactness, that really did follow the rules of physics. But that ol' humble tool (my intuition says the common garden lever) was doing a job (n.b. nothing anomalous) that most can't comprehend. IMO.

[Johndoe2]

Imo bessler had different mechanisms of action on each of his different wheels. This is why there is some confusion about his wording and clues. For example if one wheel is designed with springs and he says " it uses springs but not as you think." Later h we builds another wheel without springs but using a gardening tool.". This is what causes confusion not a contradiction.
.

So it's probable (imo that one variant used said implements" but probably all 3.

[ME]

Not sure I'm on my iPhone.
I'll try and explain it better and then see if I can draw it .

Test 1
2 masses dropped from identical heights at the same time dropped on spring board as per your initial model. ( record start height.)
Run sim (Record end height of both end heights).
This will give us gained or lost potential energy. ( Mass A + mass b ending height, Probably a small loss) record result.

Test 2
2 identical masses drooped.
Mass A dropped from 1/2 the height mass B.
Mass A is dropped 1/2 a second before mass b. ( See my slam dunk video)
This will give mass A time to compress spring board as mass B falls and accelerates.
Run sim. Calculate end point of both masses. My theory is that
1 ) that test 2 will end with total higher potential energy than test 1.

2) that test 2 ending potential energy ( expressed as ending total height of both masses will be greater than beginning height of both masses.)
If this is correct we have an increase in the Ending height (potential energy)of total system which according to newtons laws is impossible.

If this would not qualify for a valid test of Newton's laws please someone say so and explain why and I will reconfigure .


Ok going to try and draw something to help explain.

But that's part of both Science and part of perpetual motion design (see how it may beat current science).

I predict for Test 1. They end up at the same height as they start.
The spring is compressed and behaves as if you drop a single mass with the combined weight. So we should be able to manually calculate how much the spring gets compressed given:
a. the total mass of those weights
b. the height of which they drop
c. the elastic behavior (say: a spring constant in units kg/s²) of that board.

For test 2: It absolute qualifies as a valid test of Newton's laws, and also Hook's law.
Already showed how that works, now find the formulas or figure out some practical test or tests... (hint: I'm sure your iPhone has a camera, there are 'apps' to view individual frames of a video)

I also explained that verification is a necessity: So please check if, when or how I may have tricked you... or otherwise see if you can correct, enhance or improve what I showed.
The following message applies too: [link]

First try test 1, then test 2.
And good luck!

I have aprevious engagement with large amounts of alcohol and a certain beautiful woman

Forget the alcohol and just ask if she can figure it out?
That should be fun!

[Johndoe2]

Johndoe2 - Never gonna work without dem samwiches - just sayin!

Sure your right. But its doubtful we will ever know so I will settle for a stalemate which is a victory as the burden of proof is to beyond a shadow of doubt to. The accusing (offended ) party . But I will give you all a C for constipated. 😂

[Johndoe2]

Missing a few unexpected final components . Not sure if I can make them or if they will have to be ordered. Anyways mostly done but stopped just short of finishing final assembly.. more updates as info becomes available.

[ovyyus]

That sounds to me like a wheel with some latitude for inexactness, that really did follow the rules of physics. But that ol' humble tool (my intuition says the common garden lever) was doing a job (n.b. nothing anomalous) that most can't comprehend. IMO.

If the humble tool Bessler referred to was a 'simple lever' (as you intuit) then something added to it must result in a 'special lever' that can then harness an energy source within the wheel. Defining what kind of energy source is to be harnessed is the first step in designing any engine. Bessler described what powered his falling weights (gravity), but did he describe what powered his 'special levers'?

[DrWhat]

Even Bessler admits that with only one set of mechanisms the wheel barely turns.

So for us the proof of principle device will be subtle, but confirmed. We need to be confident in what we are designing to get a result.

I won't build eight mechanisms (too much work) until I see the result in just one. But unless the design is precise with variables that cen be adjusted easily, the answer will elude us.

I don't think you can just slap an idea crudely together and get a result.

[Georg Künstler]

A special lever is a lever which can be extended as long as you with sidewards. Has a variable length.

The special lever is also a lever which will be shortened.

A combination of both will allow that one weight can lift the other in a circle process.

Somewhere it is written that the weights landed on a curved board, to the levers contain some holes, to present the curved board.

Holes on the end of the lever. Look at the wheel of death for example.

So the wheel is gravity powered.

[cloud camper]

This is a great idea Georg but you forgot an important detail.

As you extend the lever length to gain more torque, the WORKING ANGLE over which the torque can then be applied reduces at the same rate as the torque is increased.

Think of it this way - in our wheel if we have a 1 kg weight on a 1m radius from the hub, we have 1 nm torque operating thru lets say a working angle of 90 degrees from about 2 o'clock to 5 o'clock on the wheel.

By our work formula in a wheel we have Work=Torque x WORKING ANGLE (in radians). A full 360 degrees is 2pi radians so 90 deg is 1/2 pi radians.

So we have Work = 1 nm (torque) x 1/2 pi (working angle) = 1/2 pi work.

But now we entend the weighted lever to 2m to gain more torque.

Since we cannot raise the weight as that would be cheating (we can only move it sideways) we are forced to reduce the working angle from 90 degrees to 45 degrees. 45 degrees is then 1/4 pi radians.

So now we have twice the torque but only half the working angle giving us EXACTLY THE SAME amount of work when the weight drops thru the new reduced angle of 45 degrees.

The levered weight still drops thru the same height but the WORKING ANGLE is reduced by half (because it is now twice as far from the hub).

Work = 2nm (torque) x 1/4 pi (working angle) = 1/2 pi work.

This is then the whole problem with leverage based designs - you can increase the torque all you want but the WORKING ANGLE over which the weight can supply that torque reduces just as fast as the torque increases so there is no gain.

It's really that simple and explains why thousands of leverage based concepts fail.

https://opentextbc.ca/physicstestbook2/ ... revisited/

[Georg Künstler]

Hi cloud camper,
I am aware of this problem , I only liked to express the change of lever length. That is one part of the construction.

You are always thinking of an fix axle, which is also not the case in the Bessler wheel. Bessler used a loose, moving axle.
He expressed this with some words like this, "and the axle will also move".

Definitely he don't describe here that the axle will turn, it will move!!
So if you make a construction with an fix axle you must always fail.
Left end right of the forces will be equal and you have a non runner.

Think how an axle can move also when the wheel is turning.
How can the axle itself swing, because oscillation is the key ?

Then try to solve it with your simulation software.
How can you simulate an moving axle ?

[Wubbly]

As you extend the lever length to gain more torque, the WORKING ANGLE over which the torque can then be applied reduces at the same rate as the torque is increased. ...So now we have twice the torque but only half the working angle giving us EXACTLY THE SAME amount of work when the weight drops thru the new reduced angle

If you are working with a constant torque through the angle this might be true, but we are working with a variable amount of torque over the angle. If you double the radius, you only get one third of the angle to work with, but you get a larger amount of variable torque and it makes the work calculations even out on both sides. See this picture here:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... er=user_id

[cloud camper]

Yes Wubbly I assumed a contant torque to simplify the explanation and calculations.

Of course a real world case will have variable torque and the integral of the torque function over the working angle will have to be taken.

But the picture remains the same as the working angle decreases in direct proportion to the increase in torque so any way you want to define the torque function there is no gain.

The main point is the calculaton of work produced in a rotating system is determined by the WORKING ANGLE that the torque works thru not the height of the weight.

Newbies just assume static system rules and just naively believe that all we have to do is just extend the lever to achieve a gain but they are forgetting to use rules applicable to a rotating system.

In a rotating system Work produced= Torque x WORKING ANGLE (or the integral of such).

In rotating system rules, physical height of a weight is totally irrelevant and no factor in the computation of work.

An amazing amount of confusion on this point!