Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference

[eccentrically1]

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.

Yes, we need to seek an OB state - from input other than conservative force.
An "open" path is only open for 360 degrees. After that, it is closed.
An initially OB state wasn't put in that OB state by gravity. And gravity wouldn't add any overbalance to that initial state. It simply converts the initial energy.

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

In a true “closed system� if in fact one does exist, it does not matter the amount of “work� done as long as it is beneficial and aids in achieving the desired end result.

We aren't talking about open vs. closed systems. Rather, open vs. closed paths.

So i had to think about this one for a minute.
In a “closed path� it is a true statement that no work is performed Only IF no additional energy is added. This is why it is important that we consider besslers wheel an open system. Any PM device must have an energy source.
We can debate on what this energy source was but iit does not change the fact that an unlimited source of energy is required.

There's no unlimited energy source that I know of.

In a "closed path" no work is performed by a conservative force. A wheel contains a closed path by definition.

IF additional external energy (or matter) is added then it's an open system.

Gravity is both an internal and external conservative force in the context of open and closed systems. IOW, no system can be completely isolated from gravity.

[Robinhood46]

For PM to be possible we need to have made a mistake somewhere. It cannot be otherwise. Pm being possible and us collectively being right about everything is far more impossible than Bessler's wheel being PM in my humble opinion.
I think that this assumption is the mistake.

A wheel contains a closed path by definition.

[Georg Künstler]

Robinhood46 wrote:

For PM to be possible we need to have made a mistake somewhere.

agreed, because we like to make our work easy, so we choose a round geometry, the Wheel.

But Bessler said, it is a Wheel and not a Wheel, because it has rims and not rims.

It is a "broken" Wheel.

Bessler said "moving axle" we use a fix axle.
Bessler said gaining momentum with its own swinging, we make it fix.

So nearly everything he is telling us is negated.

You get clear hints that one weight is going to the rim, the other to the Center, has he said Center or axle ?
One is arranging the other, they act in pairs.
We have a "Herde" which is doing the work, so a connectedned principle.
He said all must go around etc.

It clear for me that this Arrangement of weights is not be followed.

I said, that the construction is a tilt swinging, falling Forward construction in a Feedback Loop. We will see it if I am right or not.

I am preparing a very simple construction, that a carpenter apprentice can buildt.
But first I will go to vacation.

[Johndoe2]

The ground is always moving 😂

[Johndoe2]

Best of luck Georg!
Enjoy your vacation.

[eccentrically1]

For PM to be possible we need to have made a mistake somewhere. It cannot be otherwise. Pm being possible and us collectively being right about everything is far more impossible than Bessler's wheel being PM in my humble opinion.
I think that this assumption is the mistake.

A wheel contains a closed path by definition.

A mistake is being made about Bessler’s wheels, but it isn’t that a wheel contains a closed path. It’s far more likely the mistake being made is we’re not looking in the right place for the energy source. Find the energy source and there’s your PM.

[justsomeone]

Found it! 😉

[Robinhood46]

I'm not talking about mistakes of Bessler's wheel.
The mistake is our understanding of physics.

[Fletcher]

Bessler found a simple mechanical way to keep the imbalance of his wheels going i.e. CoM/CoG side shifted permanently.

The Path the weights traveled in the wheels is Closed in that they start and finish at the same place. The Stevins Problem.

The System was Open because the wheels were able to do external Work.

N.B. Work and Energy are equivalent in the Work Energy Equivalence Principle (WEEP) of Physics. Therefore under that principle (theory) energy was entering the system to be outputted as Work.

Because there is no discernible 'energy' source in the Closed Path Open System then we are forced to concentrate our efforts on the counter-intuitive mechanics that allowed for the sustained overbalance conditions, rather than follow the 'juice'.

IMO.

[Robinhood46]

The Path the weights traveled in the wheels is Closed in that they start and finish at the same place. The Stevins Problem.

Fletcher,
This is exactly the fundamental difference that i am refering to in the initial post.
The Stevin's problem is only valid if the weights take a closed path in space as well as with regard the wheel. By making the weights take a closed path in space but not with regard the wheel Stevin's problem no longer holds up, it actually explains the solution.
Hence my thoughts that the assumption that the weights must take a closed path with regard the wheel is the mistake made that led us to think PM was impossible.

[Fletcher]

The Stevin's problem is only valid if the weights take a closed path in space ... as well as with regard the wheel.

By making the weights take a closed path in space but not with regard the wheel Stevin's problem no longer holds up, it actually explains the solution.

I would appreciate a drawing or something Rh so I can better understand what you are suggesting. A pic is worth a thousand and all that.

Here's my understanding of open and closed space etc.

A wheel sits on the surface of the earth. The earth rotates. The earth also circles the sun. The sun and its solar system circle the galaxy center, etc etc.

So to my way of thinking there is no "closed path in space" - all is rotating and expanding. So spatially the weights in a wheel are not at an absolute reference 'in space'. Not 1 second later nor 1 year later, tho the wheel hasn't moved from its position on the surface of the earth.

Weights inside the wheel frame of reference (FoR) must start and finish at the same place (locally) and that is a local Closed Path. However they move within the wheel, sideways, up, down, in, out, they must come back at some point to their starting local reference position. From that FoR.

So I am confused when you say ..

"By making the weights take a closed path in space but not with regard the wheel Stevin's problem no longer holds up, it actually explains the solution."

cheers

[Robinhood46]

Thanks Fletcher for sharing your thoughts.
I think we need to get to the nitty gritty bits to be understood.

A wheel sits on the surface of the earth. The earth rotates. The earth also circles the sun. The sun and its solar system circle the galaxy center, etc etc.

This is absolutely right. As when i explained the path of a falling apple, it changes with every change of reference point.
When i say "a closed path in space" i was refering to the reference point of standing infront of the wheel. I hope you can agree that from this reference point we can observe a "closed path in space".

So to my way of thinking there is no "closed path in space" - all is rotating and expanding. So spatially the weights in a wheel are not at an absolute reference 'in space'. Not 1 second later nor 1 year later, tho the wheel hasn't moved from its position on the surface of the earth.

This i fully agree with, although i hope we can agree that it is a totally different reference point.

Weights inside the wheel frame of reference (FoR) must start and finish at the same place (locally) and that is a local Closed Path.

This is the part where i disagree.
If i was to show a drawing of the wheel it would not give the needed information to understand the difference that i am very excited about. This is why i have tried to get my thoughts across by suggesting the excercise in my initial post. I honestly thought it was clear to see what i am talking about. The fact that nobody appears to get what i'm saying is only increasing my thoughts that it could well be promising.

However they move within the wheel, sideways, up, down, in, out, they must come back at some point to their starting local reference position. From that FoR.

This is true. The interesting part is that it doesn't have to do it every rotation.
If you put 1 weight (for an example) on a wheel with 8 sections. The weight is in the section numbered 1. While the wheel is rotating it moves to section 2, the following rotation it moves to section 3, and so on, when it finally arrives where it was to "close the path" it will again be at section number 1. To do this it will have rotated 8 times. The path is closed, of this we are all happy (i hope).
Because the different references are progressing, the force being applied to the wheel will be progressing too, there is no closed loop. The weights are not "going around in circles"

"By making the weights take a closed path in space but not with regard the wheel Stevin's problem no longer holds up, it actually explains the solution."

So I am confused when you say ..

I sincerely hope that this is no longer the case.

[Fletcher]

Ok .. so we are talking about the observers FoR. That's when you stand stationary in front of the wheel and watch it and the internal weights move around in some repeating pattern.

Best of luck developing the principle !

[Robinhood46]

I would say an evolving pattern and not a repeating pattern. This is the difference.

[WaltzCee]

I've stumbled across more than one idea where the system center of mass waltzes forward
through the wheel.

Here's an example.



My thoughts were to take the energy from that movement/waltzing and use it to drive the rotation
causing it. I thought of that spirograph dance as the prime mover. My final thoughts were that was
entirely too complicated.

Best of luck.

I have four ideas now that are simply just an out of balance wheel. The motion is critical,
and the mechanism it's totally irrelevant. Everyone sees things differently. It's a crazy world
and I'm a happy guy.