Pendulums Wheel

[raj]

News from Mauritius.
My PENDULUM wheel is undergoing drastic concept improvement, working on it daily for month and consists of a WHOLE wheel swinging as an inverted PENDULUM, towards the descending side away from the axle and cannot swing back in counter-direction due to my concept design, hoping to provide gravitational torque sufficient to self-rotate.

More information, when I am ready.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Raj,
great, swinging to one side with no return is an unsymmetrical swinging, so you are on the right track.

[Fletcher]

Good brainstorming raj .. hope the experiments go well for you.

[raj]

Thanks a lot Georg and Fletcher.

The five photos show my new Inverted Pendulum Wheel Toy and a steel ball left standing on my lounge small table, only to prove the the table top is truly horizontal where my wheel concept could be tested as I have been unable to find suitable stands to put the wheel on to be tested.

Now watch this one minute video.

I am very happy with work.

If ever this wheel concept work, I have earmark some of you on this forum with whom I SHALL share gain from it.

https://youtu.be/cwJRgNVcfZk

Raj

[WaltzCee]

. .. .. .
I am very happy with work.

If ever this wheel concept work, I have earmark some of you on this forum with whom I SHALL share gain from it.

https://youtu.be/cwJRgNVcfZk

Raj

Hey buddy! What's up Raj?

Let me be the first to congratulate you on your invention of the invisible wheel.

Spectacular dude.

[Tarsier79]

Hi Raj

Impressive build! Your skills are progressing very well. It reminds me a little of Path_finders builds.

You can build a stand with exactly the same method you built your wheel. You just have to find the correct bearings for your shaft (or find the correct shaft for your bearings). Drill and press the bearings into the material, or if the hole is slightly over size, you can use a little hot glue or similar to help.

[MrVibrating]

I'm still fixated on pendulums - those long diameter-spanning weight levers B. kept depicting in MT, i suspect, represent the same key component as the pendulums shown in the published diagrams.

What makes them so potentially useful is that, by spanning the diameter, thus having nearly twice the length, they thus have four times the angular inertia compared to a radial weight lever pivoting from the wheel's center.

High angular inertia being a useful property of these components is again directly corroborated by those examples depicted with an additional pair of balanced weights on a horizontal T bar arrangement; whereas usually the period of a pendulum is purely a function of its length, not mass, here, by beefing up the MoI independently of and in addition to the maximised lever length, the drop time of a given weight * height / angle is maximised; quite simply, the greater the degree of non-gravitating inertia, the slower the drop and thus the longer the exposure time to gravity's constant acceleration; in a word, optimising momentum yield from a given weight / height action.

Furthermore if the MoI of the diametric weight levers is significantly greater than that of the wheel axis (which is mechanically feasible), then braking relative to the wheel, or else colliding with it via say a rimstop, will actively trade up the MoI for velocity components; ie. the same momentum transferred to a smaller MoI must cause it to accelerate to a higher speed.

In addition, both braking and accelerating any weight lever against a wheel - applying torques between MoI's generally - is a speed-invariant workload; that is, from the rotating wheel's perspective, the MoI of the lever weight is constant, hence it always costs the same amount of work / energy to accelerate the lever weight by the same amount, regardless of how fast the wheel itself is already spinning. By necessarily having to alternate directions, it's resetting its relative speed to 'zero' at each apex / direction change, thus constantly looping us back to the bottom of the V² multiplier on the energy cost of applying angular acceleration; a de facto necessary condition if input energy is to sum to a lower net total than the resulting rise in rotational KE - the latter squares with RPM regardless, job done; the trick is in keeping the input energy cost of further rises in angular momentum to a constant (not squaring!) value, in spite of rising system RPM. So, a heavy, weighted and oscillating component is the ideal pseudo-stator to try to drag around with you, to make an attempt at mechanical OU.


However the notion of it actually swinging in a harmonic motion - rather than 'clunking' / shifting between positions but with pauses / rests in-between as the wheel rotates - needs serious consideration, as it's a real fork in the design intentions that may present a wrong turn; i say this in particular with regards to the hypothetical "slow, powerful and chatty" wheel B. claimed would be possible were he granted sufficient time; with this particular embodiment in mind, consider the following logic train:

• this wheel too presumably relies on these high-MoI weight levers, just many more of them (more parts being more build-intensive)

• this time-consuming multiplication would be redundant if the levers could complete multiple cycles per revolution

Rather than ten levers swinging once, why not just have one swinging ten times per wheel rotation or whatevs? You only need more levers if each can only be used once per wheel rotation..

• even if the levers maintained a harmonic swing that was mostly redundant and only functional at certain wheel angles, the losses would be too high; B. didn't even have roller bearings.. not even considering any other lossy actions that might've been coupled to these swinging components..

This hypothetical low-speed / high-torque embodiment precludes the 'constant chatter' being emitted by repeated swinging of the weight levers independently of the wheel rotation. Rather, the chatter would've been many independent levers activating once per given range of wheel angle, and then presumably resetting back 180° or some other angle later.. more a clunk - clunk than a neat swing.

Another key component to consider here is the adjuster screw B. mentioned, presumably for tuning between speed vs torque; in the hypothetical low-speed high-torque wheel, the lever weights presumably have the same full range of motion as in the faster embodiments he actually demonstrated, only, these actions are translating to smaller, higher-torque displacements of the wheel.. there's just lots more of them to make up the numbers and provide consistent torque per range of wheel angle..

..see the connection? The scissorjacks presumably allude to the same thing:

• the adjuster-screw on the one-way wheel effectively moved the fulcrum / adjusted the power ratio between the weight levers and wheel.

The hypothetical slow hi-torque application just takes this to the extreme; with many more weight levers, the wheel's net MoI would be much larger than that of any individual weight lever, hence trading down the 'velocity' component of their momentum to the 'inertia' component of the wheel's.

We know that in an otherwise closed system (no stators) momentum can only come and go to gravity and time, however there's another issue that i'm still struggling with: why exactly is the system speed dependent?


This question really seems to go to the heart of the problem; as many skeptics have said, what stops a free-energy motor from catastrophic runaway, then? It can't be friction alone; how's it 'know' when it's reached the desired speed, then? Or to put it another way, if we know momentum gains can only come from gravity and time, then we're looking at some kind of system in which at a given speed only, G-time per cycle is neither net positive or negative, but symmetrical.. like a dumb pendulum. in other words, at whatever its designed operating RPM, a Bessler wheel stops gaining momentum from G*t, for some reason.. the levers still swing / clunk / do what they do, but it no longer results in positive G-time / more momentum gains. The magic all stops at the wheel's design speed.

Over-speed one, however, and G-time inverts, and you begin sinking input momentum to G*t. Backwards kiiking / reverse over-balance type stuff.


One might thus reasonably infer, then, that driven to say 5 RPM over its design speed, the wheel would be sinking precisely as much momentum to G*t as it would source were it 5 RPM under its preferred speed.

Evidently, then, this ability to gain momentum from G*t is speed-dependent; maximal at startup or low speeds, then tapering off.. and then inverting if forced to turn any faster..!

Thus, what kind of gravito-inertial interaction is fulfilled by these high-MoI weight levers, that would result in the above performance characteristics?


This is how i'm currently grappling with the problem. Specifically, focusing on the hypothetical high-torque / low RPM wheel, since this seems to represent a kind of idealised archetype of whatever the mechanical principles he was employing - one can imagine a demonstration lifting and lowering a metric-ton of bricks 50 m at a constant 1 RPM or whatevs, an otherwise-statorless system with the rope spooling right off the axle, just as Wolff described but x10.. that's what's possible, i suspect, in principle.. the key point simply that whereas in say a conventional over-balancing wheel (radial lifts) G-time per cycle is always positive but diminishing by the inverse-square of rising RPM, in a Bessler wheel G-time starts out positive but then tends to zero at some design-dependent finite speed - effectively becoming a dumb pendulum / bouncing rubber ball, but only at that specific RPM - and then actually goes negative if anything tries to further accelerate it beyond that RPM.


Somehow, those high-MoI pendulums and/or diametric weight levers, are key to how the machines worked and especially, this particular performance characteristic.

That's all i have for now tho..

[Robinhood46]

I have always been pretty convinced that centrifugal force is the rotational speed limiting factor. An automatic regulation.
I think we can compare the moving of a weight (swinging) with the advancing mechanism of the spark plug ignition on a petrol engine.
Lets say the wheel is designed in such a way that the optimal timing of the swing of the weight is 12° before TDC. At 13° it will work but only if it is already running and at 14° or earlier the mechanism will not function, because the timing of the swing is too early and the desired movement of the weights will not give correct distribution of the weights to cause the OU. The weights are moving too early.
So the wheel is made to ensure that at a very low rpm (and from rest) the timing is 12° before TDC. As the wheel increases speed, the centrifugal force delays the swinging of the weight, the timing of the swing progressively evolves toward TDC and the effect of the swing progressively reduces the effect it has on the rotation of the wheel. At 1° before TDC the swinging of the weight is too late, to cause the effect which creates the OU.
Just as the spark plug can carry on firing away, without increasing the rpm, the weights can continue swinging without increasing the rpm of the wheel. The wheel has caught up with itself, It cannot go any faster. The mechanisms still function exactly how they should, they create the knocking and scraping, but do not increase the speed.
When a load is applied, the rotational speed is reduced. Centrifugal force has less effect on the swinging weights, they therefore swing earlier creating the effect which gives the OU. As long as the force being applied to the wheel is less than the force created by the swinging of the weights, at the optimal moment, the wheel will continue to turn.
Because the delaying of the swing, due to the increase in centrifugal force, reduces progressively the "power" of the wheel, the CF will stabilise the rotational speed. It can't go any faster because there isn't enough force and it can't go any slower because there would be too much.
Obviously the amount before TDC is only to make the comparison with the timing of a petrol engine. Bessler's wheel could be firing anywhere within the 360° of rotation, and the scope of the effective range, and power reduction is probably far greater than the few degrees for the spark plug.
My guess would be something more like, maximum power is at 7.30/8.00 and the power will drop off to next to nothing around 10.30/11.00 ish.

[Georg Künstler]

We know that in an otherwise closed system (no stators) momentum can only come and go to gravity and time, however there's another issue that i'm still struggling with: why exactly is the system speed dependent?


This question really seems to go to the heart of the problem; as many skeptics have said, what stops a free-energy motor from catastrophic runaway, then? It can't be friction alone; how's it 'know' when it's reached the desired speed, then? Or to put it another way, if we know momentum gains can only come from gravity and time, then we're looking at some kind of system in which at a given speed only, G-time per cycle is neither net positive or negative, but symmetrical.. like a dumb pendulum. in other words, at whatever its designed operating RPM, a Bessler wheel stops gaining momentum from G*t, for some reason.. the levers still swing / clunk / do what they do, but it no longer results in positive G-time / more momentum gains. The magic all stops at the wheel's design speed.

exact, the momentum can only be come from gravity and time.
But the time you have available in a free fall will be dependant from the size of the wheel.

s=v*t but in our case s is the diameter of the whee d. v=a*t and in our special case we have v=g*t
The wheel speed cannot exceed this v because we have a limited diameter of the wheel.
That is the reason why Bessler has made his wheels so big.

So the wheel design speed is not magically, it will turn with its natural frequency, which is dependant from the size of the wheel.

The momentum is gained from the speed difference between the inner falling mechanism and the outer wheel.
at the beginning of the turnning of the wheel, the outer wheel is standstill, and an inner falling mechanism will fall against the rim.
The speed difference will be high.
When the outer wheel will accelerate, it automatically will decrease the difference.
The difference is reduced and reduced until the outer wheel will run with constant speed.

[bruno]

Io preferisco le biglie di legno!

[agor95]

Io preferisco le biglie di legno!

la boule n'importe qui

saying that pendulums are worth getting you head around.
Even it you loose your marbles is the process.

[johannesbender]

When you find yourself going in circles , your heading in the right direction.

[WaltzCee]

Mr Hand

Why can't we see the top of the invisible wheel in this historic documentary?

. .. .. .
I am very happy with work.

If ever this wheel concept work, I have earmark some of you on this forum with whom I SHALL share gain from it.

https://youtu.be/cwJRgNVcfZk

Raj

I'd speculate one of those jokers pushed the invisible wheel.
The real question: Was it Mr Binky or Mr Hand?

I suppose future gains will be more invisible than the wheel although the attempt at manipulation is blatant.

[agor95]

When you find yourself going in circles , your heading in the right direction.

When you go in circles you do not find yourself in a corner.

[eccentrically1]

And you always end up where you started with less energy.