Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference

[Robinhood46]

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.

If the wheel has an octagon in it the number of knocks would be 8.5 or more. If the number was 8.5 this would mean that the difference between the sizes of the two constructions was very small. The amount of lateral movement would be very limited and the offsetting of the COM minimum. The effort to do this is not worth the offset gained.
With 9 or more knocks per revolution the possibility to increase the offset increases with the number of knocks. It can then be considered to have an offset that could potentially make the wheel turn. The problem then becomes how to keep the offset octagon permanently offset? This requires an additional mechanisme. The additional mechanisme needed to do this cannot do it if the mechanisme itself has the exact same problem that you have observed in all the wheels you have seen and tried. You know that weights going around in circles cannot make a wheel turn, why do you think they can make an octagon in a wheel turn?
We most certainly agree on many things, we cannot agree on a rocking construction of any form or size because from all my experience i have come to the conclusion that it just moves the problem.
How to make a wheel turn and how to make an octagon turn. The problem is identical and the reason they don't work is identical. Moving the same problem is not what i would call a wheel with a fundamental difference. It is the COM that must walk around the wheel and not a construction. The end result is the same, the wheel would turn. You can see clearly that if you could get the octagon to do what you would like it to do, you would have a runner. I think it is easier to achieve this without a construction than with. As i have already said, i would very much like to be proven wrong.
Good luck with your try Georg,
RH 46

[Georg Künstler]

Robinhood46 wrote:

we cannot agree on a rocking construction

That's fine with me, but I can tell you, you will need this rocking as a basis for this irregular movement.
The rocking will create the additional torque which is needed.
Even the one directional wheel makes a rocking.

A flash up of a weight will also create a rock, when you release a spring.

So it will be worth to overthink your position.
But of course, you must not accept what I am saying.

[Robinhood46]

Georg,
Our conversation is doing some going around in circles too.
I've shared my thoughts on everything i found when trying to do exactly what you are doing. The multitude of variations of numbers and shapes as well as mechanismes to cause the rocking of the construction that you are so keen is the answer.
I too was very keen, this is why i spent so much time trying to perfection it. This was not lost time because it is all part of increasing our understanding of why it is believed to be impossible.
I consider this method to be exhausted, a non runner, not the answer. It will take a runner to convince me that i am wrong or an argument that i have not already covered to give me a doubt.
Everything you are telling me i have already tried. I have probably tried things that you are not yet even thinking about, trust me Georg, you will be soon. You are absolutely right about a lot of what you are saying and this is why you think you are very close. You will be very close and you will get even closer and when you get close enough to see that the construction is the problem, it will be you who will be overthinking your position.
So i hope we can agree to dissagree on this one.
I have much appreciated all your comments and i sincerely hope that you can prove me wrong.
The only additional advice i can give you is to, every time you come accross a problem, try imagining the exact same set up without the construction.
Best regards.
RH 46

[Fletcher]

@ Rh46 ..

I appreciate your efforts to articulate your thoughts. It's not always easy to give a clear and concise picture by the very nature of the 'unknown' we wish to discuss and explore. Let alone the cat calling crowd of scientists and skeptics in the bleaches of your mind ;7) Practice helps.

Everything I say has an automatic 'IMO' qualifier. It is my best opinion at that time because I don't have a working physical PM wheel to raise it from speculation to fact. Some of it is well informed opinion imo ;7)

I do appreciate a well thought out and constructed debate because it also challenges me to walk in your head space rather than bounce around in my own as is usually the case.

And there always exists the possibility, if we are open to it, that one or other will gain a slightly altered perception of what we previously thought we knew. Some of my thoughts about mechanics are set in concrete. I only hope my feet weren't in it at the time it went off. Hence the value of yours and ME's input for instance. Maybe I can loosen a foot occasionally.

My main point is that I try not to 'believe' anything I encounter in life. Especially in this hobby. I don't even believe that B. told the unadulterated truth at every occasion. I think he had only ONE PM Principle and this is where I agree with Georg - that the path the weights took is elliptical (you've seen my theory). This Principle (the horse) underpins all other variations he came up with. And I believe he didn't hit upon the ultimate design first up but progressed towards it with his subsequent builds. Much as I'm also trying to do when time permits.

The upshot being that many of B's. 'clues' in AP for instance describe different machines and lesser principles he used at the time, hence the confusion if we take everything he says as gospel literal truth. I only recently appreciated that fully. I hope I'm not wrong about that. IMO.

Best as always.

[ME]

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.

Things going around all go up and down and left and right....

A wheel is a flywheel where only friction causes deceleration.
But we don't want deceleration, we want acceleration.
Rotational acceleration, while the axle remains stationary.

We know that when we put a weight off-center on the wheel that it will act like a pendulum: it starts accelerated because that weight has an effective torque on the wheel - as what we want.
When we put two or more weights on the wheel and place them symmetrically around the wheel then it's suddenly balanced, and the situation becomes a flywheel again.
The weight may have their own torque effect on the wheel while going up and down and left and right, yet they all counter eachother.

So we look for a way that causes asymmetry where things start accelerate again, just like a single weight, and keep that as long as possible: That's the overbalanced concept, the shifting of the center of mass.
One way is to shift the position along the rim, the other is shifting towards the center... or a combination.

I investigated that situation where things are stationary/locked on the wheel to cause a torque on the wheel, and then find the ideal direction to shift things around.
When you try this out then you'll find that to get an overbalance (while rotating!) you need to shift upward: It may be go at an angle, or at a curve along the rim.

You may shift sideways, but that will not cause an overbalanced path.
Most likely the shifting sideways get triggered by gravity and requires a downwards slope: causing a counter torque.

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.

Yes!
The "wrong" is found in the lower MT's, and shifting sideways is the counter productive intuition... that's what I keep telling, and that's where I reacted to in the first place.
So you can move ahead with trying to circumventing this common issue...

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.

yes.
When you look for a workaround it would be nice to understand the Scientific and Geometric arguments.
Otherwise you'll just trying to reinvent -with much effort- what 'Science' and 'Geometry' already found.
Simple as that.

[Robinhood46]

I think he had only ONE PM Principle and this is where I agree with Georg - that the path the weights took is elliptical

I think there are many of us that agree with this.
The fundamental difference that i am trying to get across is the way we go about achieving this.
An eliptical path every cycle implies a weight going some where and then coming back. It's the coming back that equals everything out. The weight must come back for it to be able to go some where the following turn.
By alternating between circular path and eliptical path the weights no longer need to come back. They can go some where doing something then go no where doing nothing and then go some where doing something. If there is never any coming back there is no equalizing of the gain created by the going some where.
The way to avoid the coming back is extremely simple, when the weight goes forward creating the eliptical path, leave it where it is and don't bring it back. After a full turn of the wheel it will then again go forward creating the eliptical path without it ever coming back.
The eliptical path is the answer it just needs to be made by a one way movement.
Imo.

[Fletcher]

yes.

When you look for a workaround it would be nice to understand the Scientific and Geometric arguments.

Otherwise you'll just trying to reinvent -with much effort- what 'Science' and 'Geometry' already found.

Simple as that.

Yes lol.

You are preaching to the converted with me ME (taken in the nicest way) :7) I've spent my time trying to understand those two arguments against mechanical gravity PM and I think I have a reasonable grasp of them. I actually 'believe' them to be accurate. I am also not deflated by that realization and truth, on the contrary ! It inspires me to move on from the plethora of failed false PM wheels and do some real soul searching and ask some hard questions.

What is the 'true mechanical PM principle that B. talks about ? It has to be sustained overbalance from an effective displaced CoM/CoG. Then something mechanically completely counter-intuitive kicks in, in the design. Not so much 'missed' as JC recently said in his blog but completely counter-intuitive imo. C-I because everybody before and since B. has not recognised nor seen its potential to maintain the overbalance conditions. No disgrace in that, we are all in some good company.

Nevertheless I will keep the channels open and hope that my C-I thinking ability is up to the task. I have to 'believe' that to even bother looking for a mechanical workaround to the science and geometry issues to this day set in stone. Each day I hope that someone can find that PM Principle and cause a scientific seismic event and a liquefaction to free those Laws from their imprisonment.

Fine words and sentiments - let's translate them to deeds !

[WaltzCee]

I've been trying to share my thoughts on a wheel with a fundamental difference which i think very important.
My use of the words "going around in circles" doesn't appear to be meaning the same to others as it does to me.
As it has clearly been said by many, what we mean and what others think we mean are often totally different.
If i take 1000 images of gravity wheels from a google search. 999 are going around in circles and one is not.
The fact that i can only find 1 that is not i find rather curious. The 1 that is not was designed by Leonardo Da Vinci.
Here is a link for those not familiar with his attempts.
http://www.edgeofyesterday.com/time-tra ... on-designs
To help understand exactly what i mean;
If you take any gravity wheel you choose and spray paint 1 weight very badly, being sure to spray the wheel at the same time.
If you turn the wheel 14 Million times you will see that the painted weight will ALWAYS be in the same area/section as the overspray on the wheel and that 14 Million times the sprayed weight will be in exactly the same place as when you painted it.
If you do this to Leonardo Da Vinci's try you would not find the same result.
I can fully understand that my way of explaining my thoughts is not clear, but it is very clear to me that if 999 out of 1000 are doing exactly the same thing in many different ways and that only 1 is doing something different, that maybe we need to focalise on trying to find variations to the 1 as opposed to adding a few thousand more attempts to the already thousands of existing failures.
Paint an arm and it's swivel
Paint a ball and it's housing
Coleur the water and paint it's bottle
paint a weight and its track
Find your way of understanding what "going around in circles" means.
When you understand what i mean you will see which of Leonardo's attempts are different.
Maybe you will find other attempts that i am not aware of, if so please share them.

First, let me say that I am honored to be in the presence of such genius. Having said that,
let me pull quotes from what you've said initially and question it. It may perhaps be a little
bold of me to question you, however frankly my dear I don't give a damn.

Let's start with this gem.

If i take 1000 images of gravity wheels from a google search. 999 are going around in circles and one is not.
The fact that i can only find 1 that is not i find rather curious. The 1 that is not was designed by Leonardo Da Vinci.

DaVinci had several ideas. Rather than keep us guessing as to what you think, why don't you
just post the picture you imagine to be DaVinci's unique idea?

I have several ideas concerning your OP. I intend to revisit this matter. To give you a little bit
of a heads up, I want to talk about your complaint of people misunderstanding you all the
while speaking in very vague terms.

[WaltzCee]

Find your way of understanding what "going around in circles" means.
When you understand what i mean you will see which of Leonardo's attempts are different.
Maybe you will find other attempts that i am not aware of, if so please share them.

This is going to happen when you plainly state what you mean. It might Begin by you
posting a picture and then perhaps describing why you think it's different.


Sounds crazy, I know.

[Robinhood46]

Waltzcee,
Thankyou for clarifying that what i have been saying is not being understood.
This can be interpretated as a complaint if one wishes. It can also be understood as an explaination of one of the difficulties often observed in discussions between members. Not being understood is frustrating, the person trying to express their thoughts wants to be understood. If this was not the case they wouldn't be expressing them. We can often see members who are saying they have the answer without giving any information too. Not giving information and giving information that is not being understood has the same result, nobody knows what you are talking about.

, I want to talk about your complaint of people misunderstanding you all the
while speaking in very vague terms.

I hope to have already cleared up the first part, if this is not so, then frankly my dear I don't give a damn either.
As for the speaking in vague terms. I can understand that what i am saying can be seen as "vague terms". I do not know how to make people think differently than they normally do.
I honestly thought that the first post of this thread was clear enough for everyone to understand what i am talking about.
I think we can agree that i was completely wrong.
What has happened?
Have people actually spray painted a weight and observed what happens?
Have people imagined doing it?
Have people understood what i'm saying and don't think it a big deal?
Have some understood exactly what i mean?
Have people come to the conclusion that there isn't a common factor that "could possibly" be responsible for the ever repeating failures?
I do not know what conclusion people are coming to if nobody shares their thoughts.

I said at one point, "Find your way of understanding what "going around in circles" means."
The point i was trying to make was that what i am seeing i am interpreting as "going around in circles". This is MY way of understanding what i am seeing, or to be more precise, it is my way of expressing my understanding of what i am seeing. This has absolutely nothing to do with how you see it. (or don't see it).
In a recent post i spoke about weights going some where and coming back. I said that i think that it is the coming back that is the problem.
Does this make any sense to you or is it also a "vague term"?
In a way it is very vague because it covers thousands of different movements in a multitude of wheels. In another way it is not vague at all.
A oneway street is a oneway street. It differs from a two way street because cars can only go one way.
We do not need to discuss any aspect whatsoever of all the particularities of all the oneway streets around the world (length, width, colour, altitude, orientation,radius of curves) to know that cars go only in one direction.

This is going to happen when you plainly state what you mean. It might Begin by you
posting a picture and then perhaps describing why you think it's different.

Now this did make me laugh out loud.
I shared a link with Da Vinci's wheels and i've been trying very hard to gat my thoughts out there.
We were told that PM is impossible, we were told why it is impossible and we were told how to come to the conclusion that this is right.
Some things we cannot be told, we need to understand them ourselves.
You all think i'm crazy for talking nonsense and i think you are all crazy for not understanding what i am saying. This is not a complaint or a critisisme, it is just my thoughts of the situation.

Sounds crazy, I know.

At least we can agree on that.

[Georg Künstler]

Fletcher wrote:

It has to be sustained overbalance from an effective displaced CoM/CoG. Then something mechanically completely counter-intuitive kicks in, in the design

Here I have compared a central axle with a moving construction.

In the central axle Version the energy is lost when the mass has reached its lowes Point. Gravity can not do anything for you after this Point.

Now look at the second construction. This are 2 Systems.
When gravity will turn the weight, it will also turn both Systems. What we have in Addition is the loaded, compressed springs. We have a Gravity preloaded System.
When we have 8 springs, we only compress the two bottom ones.
Gravity will do that for us, the complete mass above is compressing the springs and is also creating the torque for us.

You will say, I know, this is a one shot, that will not work.
Once you have turned the mass also down in this Position the process will stop.
No i will say, there is a function to Keep it always in a Repetition mode on the same shape as the original.

It is overbalanced from the begining, self starting.

[Robinhood46]

I found a couple of images shared by Silent in this thread. They show clearly the difference between all the wheels and Da Vinci's.

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8292
Fletcher shared his thoughts on MT 138, which many of us think is an important clue.
"Children = play in which there is something special, who knows how to apply them in a different way."

By applying them in the way i have explained, the path of the weights will be the second image that Silent shared, only with 5 loops not 3.
If their are seven arms (points) with 12 weights, there would be 7 loops. 9 arms with 16 weights would be 9 loops.
Making loops is "not going around in circles".
Making loops is "not riding with the wheel"
Making loops is "evolving"
Making loops is " not being fixed to the wheel".

The first image shared by Silent is what the weights are doing when they are doing all the things that don't work.

[eccentrically1]

I think what you're trying to show is that gravity isn't a conservative force if the weights are mechanically forced to take a non-circular path, and would gain enough momentum that way to push the wheel.
But the definition of a conservative force includes that path independence. No matter what path the weights are forced to take, gravity does the same amount of work on them (zero) after the path is closed. And the path is always closed, no matter how many rotations it takes -1, 2, 3 - because they are inside a wheel!
There is no fundamental difference in paths.

[Robinhood46]

This is where Stevin's explaination comes onto play.
The positions of each weight have exactly the same force on the wheel irrespective of which weight is where. The condition is that as long as there is a weight in the same place as there was before there cannot be any gain.
We can therefore conclude that if a wheel is out of balance and we move the weights in an "open" path for the duration of the change from one set up of weights to another identical set up of weights we will again have an out of balance wheel. We need to seek a continuously out of balanced state as opposed to trying to put a balanced state out of balance.

[Johndoe2]

Can we all agree that, By definition any wheel affected by gravity (since it comes from an external source is an open system).