Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference

[Fletcher]

Continuously moving a weight laterally is not the same as continuously raising a weight.

Yes it is.

I agree with ME Rh46. Here's a thread dedicated to cogently explaining why they are the same.

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 375#134375

It doesn't mean we all can't look for a mechanical workaround to solve the conundrum. And that's what we do. Even the die-hards like ME and me.

[Robinhood46]

Next time i have to push a car up a steep hill i'll try and convince myself that it needs no more effort whatsoever than pushing it along a horizantal road.
I do have my doubts, i must admit.

[ME]

Robinhood, you are shifting your own context and thereby trick yourself. The context was:

We do not need to achieve any gain whatsoever in height, we just need the weights path to be off center.

My point in that link "Importance of raising weights": you need to move early to get your shifting effect.

Thus continuously moving a weight in whatever direction of the rotational plane has always the same effect.
Only, the exact point I try to make with "raising weight" is that you need to raise upwards to get an overbalance.


While I can understand some may not like it, I think it's nice to know what it exactly is you do not like.
Such makes it easier to either find an alternative or discover you're stuck.

Added, for those interested, an animation trying to show the effect of lifting 3 units during a full circle.
While such adds 3 units to the circumference it doesn't matter in how many part you do this lifting as the average offset, and thus its torque-effect, remains the same.


The same goes for the following observation: b'cause geometry.

Why can't excess weight located near the center of rotation have enough gravitational power to lift a weight at the rim, overcome centrifugal force and compress springs, all with great speed?

Basically the question is like why moving a weight a small distance can't effect in moving a weight a larger distance in the same time.
Leverage is, what leverage does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlYEi0PgG1g

Bessler did say somewhere about it being easier to move weights horizantally then vertically. i can't remember his exact words.

https://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index ... -60#MT_041

[Fletcher]

Next time i have to push a car up a steep hill i'll try and convince myself that it needs no more effort whatsoever than pushing it along a horizontal road.

I do have my doubts, i must admit.

Here's a humorous and educational video daxwc once put up in a thread about height for width. I remembered it coz it was fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZbPj0pwl0k

[Robinhood46]

Me,
What i can't understand is that if you believe this to be true.

Thus continuously moving a weight in whatever direction has always the same effect.

Why are you trying to find the solution to wheel that was continuously moving weights if all the other tries don't work because it doesn't matter which direction they are moved the result is the same, ie they don't work?

[ME]

It's the reason why the lower MT's fail.
Shifting a weight sideways by gravity can only happen when the sideways motion is sloped ever so slightly downwards (it may be a pendulum).
The thing that I observe is that any motion downwards to get a gain causes the average to be on the wrong side so it causes a counter torque; counter acting the exact torque gain that one tried to achieve.
It's geometry. We can rotate the picture to see what will happen when you move in any other direction.
The thing that likely rivals basic intuition: Shifting sideways will not cause overbalance! - Yes for the basic lever, but not when it goes around.

Hence we either need to find another way for gaining perpetual motion...
...or find a way that circumvents this geometry.

The latter is hard because in my example of "raising weight" you may stop the wheel after rotating a small sector; move the weight to any position you like by taking it off the board and place it at an arbitrary position for the only cost/gain of potential energy; then continue with rotating another small sector.

Why are you trying to find the solution to wheel..

Curiosity.

[Robinhood46]

Fletcher,
The video explains very nicely about lifting a weight.
Me's comment;

Robinhood, you are shifting your own context and thereby trick yourself. The context was:
RH46 wrote:
We do not need to achieve any gain whatsoever in height, we just need the weights path to be off center.

If i say that rolling the barrel along the floor without lifting it to put it in the lorry or pushing a car along the flat because it doesn't need to go up a hill, are both easier, would this be out of context?

[ME]

Not spending potential energy simply keeps potential energy. Besides some elements of friction it's hard to argue against that.

Yet your topic "Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference" argues about things "going around in circles".
It was not Bessler's wheel that went rolling down the streets, but things inside the wheels that [presumably] went around somehow.

Again, and in that going-around context, in order to shift a weight horizontally [to gain torque] you need to raise it upwards.
It's simply because of geometry, not because I like it.

[Robinhood46]

Me,
I don't know if we have crossed lines here.
Obviously for a wheel to be going around things are going to be doing some going up and some going down. There will be some going left and going right too.
Every time a weight goes down it puts enough energy into the wheel for it to go up exactly the same amount, theoretically. This part of the lifting a weight is of no importance.
Maybe i should have said accelerating a weight vertically up is harder than accelerating a weight horizantally.
I can fully understand your opinion that PM cannot be gained without lifting a weight, i do not agree with it.
I think your findings with regard not achieving anything from shifting weights laterally and your thoughts that the advantage of leverage is lost once applied to a rotating frame are because you have alwys needed the weights to come back to their original position with regard the wheel. By eliminating the need to bring the weights back, i think the advantage of leverage can be kept even when turning.
As i have already said, for Bessler's wheel to be true, we must be wrong about something. Continously insisting that we are right about something is counter productive. We are all prepared to be wrong about different things.

[Fletcher]

The Laws of Science and the Mathematics of Geometry say it can not be done.

Researchers like Rh46 believe it can be done.

Others have feet in both camps hopping about from foot to foot like the ground is on fire.

We choose to look for a workaround mechanical condition that takes the Scientific and Geometric arguments out of play, and then allows us to also believe in Bessler's wheels, rather than assign a percentage or probability to them and him without the proof.

Simple as that.

[Robinhood46]

Fletcher,
I don't like contradicting you because i really appreciate your opinion.

Researchers like Rh46 believe it can be done.

It would be more correct to say that i believe it may be possible to do it.
I cannot believe it can be done because i have no way of convincing myself that it can. I am working toward getting the information to help me answer the question, can it or can it not be done?

Others have feet in both camps hopping about from foot to foot like the ground is on fire.

These people are just like me, they haven't made a decision. They don't believe it is possible and they don't believe it is not possible.
The only real believers are those who believe it is impossible. They have made a decision and they will defend their decision. Defending beliefs is the heart of many problems.
The most important thing that i feel needs to be clear when discussing any aspect of anything is are we ourselves absolutely 100% sure of what we are saying. Have we done absolutely everything to establish that we hold the truth or are we just sharing our understanding of what we have been taught because we believe it to be right.
We can think things or we can know things.
Knowing we think something or thinking we know something is what makes the difference.
Having a discussion with people who know they think something is far more productive than with someone who thinks they know.
I am trying to learn because i do not know everything about everything.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,
you see you fight very soon against the rest of the world.
This should not be your aim, they are wrong.
Concentrate on that what you already have found.

We have some differences in expressions, but we are, I assume, on the right track.

I think we can agree together that we need an unround circle.
Your expression therefore is an elliptical path, I said egging, so both we mean the same shape of curve.
Only when you use this path you get differences in the forces. This forces are not nice and some times hard to calculate.

You have recognized that the octagon has an rotating frame, and once a time the octagon is on the move, the ground is also on the move, the octagon has no stabil stand anymore.

You are looking for the horse of the cart, have you found it ?
Here I can help you, the octagon has 8 horses, not only one.
When you follow Bessler then he said "eine Herde", a herd.

The octagon is carrying 8 pendulums, each can act as its own.
But together they are strong, because the octagon is representing the connectedness principle.

The standing octagon will produce no torque, it is a well balanced system.

The octagon has a step size, depending on the building size.

Here you can now count on Marchello, we have to lift the weights by turning the Hamster cage.
Here we can see two different actions.
1. if you turn the Hamster wheel only some degrees, it will act as a normal pendulum, it will swing back and forth.
2. and this is the interresting part, if you turn it some degrees more, the octagon will fall over, we have a tilting, which will correspond to Besslers eyewhitnesses which have counted 8 impacts on the downgoing side.

But what happen on this impact ? An Impact is an feared movement from the technicians.
This Impact is the game changer for everything in the movement.
I have described it several times as an indirect impact.

The pendulums are not stopped with this impact, they move on.
From the time after the impact, we have torque and a lifting of the pendulums against gravity. We have a lift of the weights in a flash.

On the downgoing side the pendulums will go to the rim,
On the other side the pendulum will go to the center.
We have now shifted the cog to the downgoing side by the length of the pendulums.

From standstill at the beginning, we have now created the additional torque to drive the wheel.

We have 8 horses, and we have also the needed speed difference by going up and down of the pendulums.

[Robinhood46]

you see you fight very soon against the rest of the world.
This should not be your aim, they are wrong.
Concentrate on that what you already have found.

I am more than happy with this, fighting against the rest of the world can be very constructive, when it is done politely and respectfully.
I agree that they a wrong, i just don't know what it is exactly they are wrong about. It is very clear that they are not wrong about everything.
I am concentrating on what i have aready found. The problem is it is very slow, i do not have access to machinery and reproducing many parts with hand tools is very time consuming and the lack of precision only increases the complexity. When everything falls precisely where it should there is no need for additional guides and deflectors to aline the different mechanismes.
We are both trying to do the same thing, i agree. There is however, in my opinion one big difference that i think very important.
Your octagon exists. And it is it's existance that is the problem. It is always having an effect on the wheel and the effect it has on the wheel is balancing out. If you could create an imaginary octagon that does exactly what your real octagon does you would not have this problem.
Imagine a rope that is fixed to the rim of your wheel that does one loop around the octagon. You have two circles one inside the other sitting at the bottom. The rope crosses itself where they touch. When you rotate the wheel with the octagon doing exactly what you want it to do, observe the rope (fix an imaginary weight to it). Observe the path of the weight for a few turns. If you can gat the weights to follow that path you do not need the octagon because the weights will be creating the same COM.
You will notice that the length of the rope is smaller going around the octagon than going around the rim. Therefore when the weight has gone around the octagon it cannot go around the wheel at the same place as where it left the wheel.
The octagon rotates more than 360° with every full turn of the wheel. This is exactly what you are obseving with your rocking/tilting octagon.
You have already observed that the octagon wants to tilt/rock all of it's own. This happens too late, this is the problem. You need to either accelerate it vertically so that it falls to the side or accelerate it horizantally so that it is always off center.
The swinging weights that follow the path of the rope (when going around the octagon) also want to swing naturally. The swinging of each weight needs to be accelerated horizantally a fraction to get the continual off center you are trying to get by moving a real octagon.
I think the horse of the cart is the weight that takes the rim of the wheel over the 12 oclock while pulling the weight that crosses the wheel at the center. Or in your case, pulling the weight at the top of the octagon.
When the cart meets the rim it then swaps to become a horse and pulls the horse (that has swapped to become a cart). This will give the exact same path for each and every weight as you have observed with the imaginary weight on the rope looped around the octagon.

[Robinhood46]

Georg,
If there is an octagon rocking/tilting it will not give 8 knocks per revolution.
This cannot happen, the circumference of the octagon must be smaller than the circumference of the wheel, if not then it is just as big and cannot move.
One rotation of the wheel is equal to one rotation of the octagon + the difference in circumference of the two. 8 knocks can only be achieved with a 7 or less sided inner construction.

[Georg Künstler]

Robinhood46 wrote:

It is always having an effect on the wheel and the effect it has on the wheel is balancing out.

The effect is that it cannot be balanced out, because both are running in the same direction, there is no swing back of the Hamster cage.
It is running in a positive feedback loop.

The first impact impress the direction of rotation.

I agree that there are not exact 8 impacts per turn of the Hamster cage, because the octagon is smaller then the inner radius of the Hamster cage, let it be lower then 8, the eyewitness can not count 7.5 per turn, they will give you 8 back as a number.

I also agree that we don't need a octagon, we can have any regular form which is creating the unround movement.

What we have to consider is that Bessler had build different versions so I had also to develop this versions, only to learn his ways how to get the self running wheel.

The octagon wheel is not self starting, it needs a push or pull to impress the direction of rotation.
But you can also see that there are no springs included. So the octagon with the swinging pendulums are not pure Bessler, maybe a 80 % chance of the parts.

I can variate my versions now, so that they start by themself.
they do a repeating process after 45 degrees ,so the development of the Hamstercage-octagon was an intermediate step for learning.
But that was a hard learning to get there. Now it is simple.

And for all who are thinking that the wheel is hurting Newtons laws, I must say, the laws are correct, and my latest version can also put into a simulator. The simulation software can handle it now.

The new version is a preloaded construction, preloaded with Gravity energy.