Why doesn't this PMM idea work?

[Phaedrus]

Has anyone seen this before:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBZl_fmED-k

What I want to know is WHY doesn't this work? It obviously isn't a Bessler Wheel, but when I look at it, it seems it should keep rotating based on the fact that at each position of the wheel, the sum of the 4 force vectors would seem to add up such that they are pushing it clockwise. I tried to simulate this using the only simulator I have which is Algodoo, but it never would keep going around. But maybe it just needs to be tweaked correctly or something. Could someone reading this who has WM2D try to see if THEY can make this go? Or even better, build it to see if it works?

Note that even if it would work, I'm not saying this would be the design to use to produce free energy. Because I doubt it would put out much torque. But it could finally be a simple verification of the principle that unaided perpetual motion is possible.

Its a very interesting design idea, don't you think?

[iacob alex]

Hi Phaedrus !
Take a look at this digest (minimal spare parts...) of your proposal/idea :
http://moteur-hackenberger.over-blog.co ... 01661.html
...and a test around the same suggestion , at :
https://youtu.be/5I4NDGcj1UA
Now , what is your common sense about it ?
Al_ex

[Phaedrus]

Yes, when I first saw your diagram I didn't think it had anything to do with the video I showed (and I don't know french language). But now I see that it does seem to want to work based on the same principles. But the "Free Energy Gravity Wheel" (as it is called in the video I posted a link to) seems to be the Sellier Machine in 2 dimensions or something. Maybe the reason the Sellier Machine doesn't work (does it?) would explain why the Free Energy Gravity Wheel doesn't work (or does it?). And about your video, I had seen that device demonstrated in a different video (I guess it was part 1) years ago, but I never had realized that it was trying to utilize the idea behind your Sellier Machine. Interesting...

[Fletcher]

Has anyone seen this before:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBZl_fmED-k

What I want to know is WHY doesn't this work?

Hi .. my 2 cents .. it doesn't work because the NET forces add to zero. What is sometimes called a zero sum wheel.

Frictional forces further erode the energy, so that it slows down and stops.

To 'work' it would require to have enough NET Rotational Kinetic Energy (RKE) or Angular Momentum to keep rotating and meet the frictional losses present.

This can be summed up very quickly by simply saying that any wheel structure that follows a closed path in a conservative gravity field will zero sum - or NET Torque will be zero.

The Stevin's Principle (Simon Stevin 17th century) also called "Epitaph of Stevinus" helps visualize the problem. Here is the wikipedia page for Stevins and his proof of the law of equilibrium on an inclined plane. Scroll down to the section on Geometry, Physics and Trigonometry to see the picture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Stevin

Here is the explanation from the museum of unworkable devices.

http://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

Scroll down about half the page.

The equilibrium of forces (torques) can as I said be summed up into perhaps one oversimplified, nevertheless accurate, observation. That of imbalance wheels and closed paths can never lead to disequilibrium of forces in a conservative gravity field. IMO.

[agor95]

That of imbalance wheels and closed paths can never lead to disequilibrium of forces in a conservative gravity field.

That is the ultimate barrier we see before use.

Superimposing an inertial field that is conservative on the above seems without point.

However this is the conceptual space we find ourselves within IMO.

If only a inertial field was not conservative when operating within an accelerating frame of reference.

If only the potential to do work varied within these superimposing fields we would have a chance.

If only.

Regards

[Fletcher]

That of imbalance wheels and closed paths can never lead to disequilibrium of forces in a conservative gravity field.

That is the ultimate barrier we see before us.

Stevin's Principle presents both a logical paradox and possibly a crisis of faith for the imbalanced wheel builder.

What it does do is push the boundaries of critical thinking, which of course it must, to be solved for a 'working' true mechanical gravity PM wheel.

[AB Hammer]

Phaedrus

That is only the first step in a mutable step process device. As iacob alex showing of one of my video of my attempt of this line of thinking. There is more to be thought out.

[Phaedrus]

Has anyone seen this before:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBZl_fmED-k

What I want to know is WHY doesn't this work?

Here is the wikipedia page for Stevins and his proof of the law of equilibrium on an inclined plane. Scroll down to the section on Geometry, Physics and Trigonometry to see the picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Stevin

Hmm, didn't see any proof on that Wikipedia page*. But be that as it may, when I wrote my original post, I was thinking of adding (but thought it was sort of taken for granted): "That is, other than the explanation that perpetual motion machines are impossible", which is what it seems you are using as the explanation.

*- there is the diagram on the right of Stevin's famous string-of-beads around an inclined plane. In the caption for that diagram, I found law of equilibrium on an inclined plane. Upon clicking this, I was taken to his argument. The important bulleted point being:

• The string must be stationary, in static equilibrium. If it was heavier on one side than the other, and began to slide right or left under its own weight, when each bead had moved to the position of the previous bead the string would be indistinguishable from its initial position and therefore would continue to be unbalanced and slide. This argument could be repeated indefinitely, resulting in a circular perpetual motion, which is absurd. Therefore, it is stationary, with the forces on the two sides at point T (above) equal.

So notice, that using Stevin's string-of-beads around an inclined plane proof that perpetual motion is impossible, is a circular argument. Since he assumes PM is absurd as part of his proof.

[Fletcher]

I did say perhaps over simplified IINM. And no I wasn't defaulting back on the old chestnut that PM wheels are impossible as the main argument.

The argument is that no one (except perhaps Bessler) has ever managed to find asymmetric torques around an axle that leads to a build up of angular momentum in a wheel.

As per Stevin's principle of equilibrium of forces (torques) they are always in equilibrium i.e. symmetric. As much in one direction as the opposite, on average. If they were graph plotted the areas above and below the axis would be equal.

So the goal is for a wheel apparatus to produce more torque in one direction than the other, on average i.e. different areas, a bias.

In your examples the proof is in the building. None will gain momentum and keep turning. They all come to a halt, whether released from a favourable torque position or given a slight push start.

Some think that is because frictional forces are too great and robbing the system of Rotational Kinetic Energy. And so they think if the bearing and pivots were better quality etc it will surely turn.

But very good bearings and bushes are available, and sims have zero friction options and still do not maintain self-turning. There simply is no sustained torque bias.

So expanding and paraphrasing Stevin's equilibrium for forces axiom we can infer that a wheel of compartments (or repeating sectors) will by necessity follow a closed curvilinear path (trajectory). And so each sector in turn will look like the preceding etc. And if that systematic duplication and repetition happens then the axiom is that there is automatically (and mathematically) symmetry of torques (per sector) about the axle.

ME explains it well in his topic "The Importance of Raising Weights"

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 710#167710

[Johndoe2]

Ask yourself where does the energy come from?
No mechanical engine can operate ( regardless of how efficient the levers and pulleys are without additional energy ( whatever type you chose )

It would be like looking at a sim of a gasoline engine rotating .
Sure it operates but without gasoline it will not function of its own accord.
Unless there is some hidden power source this design will not operate.

[agor95]

Ask yourself where does the energy come from?

It would be good if this was a thread in it's own right.

Then the answers can be stated and there would be no need to repeat this question
in many threads over the years.

Just a thought.