Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference

[Robinhood46]

For those who have difficulty visualising my explanation, here i have the two heavy weights. It certainly looks like it is possible, to get a pretty good path of the heavy weights, while keeping them constantly off centre, and at a non negligible distance.
If a 1 pound weight lifts a 4 pound weight that never goes to the other side of the central axis, or only a proportionately small distance, how can it not work?
Bessler said half is full and light and the other half is full and heavy, or something along those lines.
In the video i have added guides, which are fixed to the background, which would be fixed to the frame, if they existed, which i am pretty sure they didn't. Bessler spoke of poltergeists going through locked doors. If the laterally moving heavy weight (when it is in the higher position) was pushed along a curved guide fixed to the crossbar, it may be possible to force it to take the position, that it swings back to in the video, which isn't too good and would be best avoided. This would also eliminate the need for the additional vertical guide, which is only there to stop the weight shifting too far to the left. This would obviously imply the need for some form of door, for the weights to pass through, not too easy of a task with Algodoo.
Getting the heavy weights further from the central axis, is a must, in my opinion and i do think it is doable.
https://youtu.be/lUBhkVAByTg

Edit "half is empty and light and the other half is full and heavy".

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,
I have made a picture of my latest construction.
The movable window frame, the carrier, I have extended by swinging weights.
They swing in sync during the impact on the downgoing side.
The pendulum will swing ahead and upwards during the impact.
I have substituted the lead cylindrical weight, which I assume Bessler has used, with some screw nuts.

[Robinhood46]

Hi Georg,
An excellent build by the looks.
I don't know if you remember my comments from many months back, about the inconvenience of the octagon, being that there is the need to shift laterally the whole thing. The folding window frame does reduce this negative aspect considerably, because you are just shifting laterally a part of the structure and not the whole thing. This reduction, in my opinion, isn't sufficient to achieve OU by this method. The shifting is always too late.
I am surprised that you haven't commented on my last video, because it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see the similarity between what is going on and what you are trying to achieve. If i were to increase the number of crossbars, pulleys, cords and weights, you would clearly see exactly what you are trying to achieve. A configuration of a rolling mass of heavy weights offset from the vertical centre line. This is exactly what you, and i, have been trying to achieve for a very long time, because we both know that this is the only logical explanation for Bessler's success, or to to be more precise, we both believe it is.
I have already shared my thoughts that i think you are trying to do the right thing, but you are doing it in the wrong way. I'm not too sure exactly how you are hoping to use the swinging of the weights to get the extra bit we are all seeking. I do think you are making the same mistake, that i, and many have made, and that i may well still be making, and that is, marrying an aspect that we are convinced is important. Important enough to not be possible without it. Maybe the octagon, and now the folding frame is getting in the way of you finding the answer, as opposed to getting you nearer.
Obviously just my thoughts, and as always i hope you prove me wrong.

[Robinhood46]

I think this could explain the AP diagram.
I put a wheel with a single weighted arm (light weight), so as to show the falling forward during the dark patch and the swinging back, which includes the white patch. This obviously progresses radially round the wheel/frame, but it can be seen clearly.
The wheel on the right shows the full version, with all the weights. It would definitely being making "about 8 knocks".
I can't get the pivot points in, nearer to the axle, because of the programme limitations. I would have thought it perfectly doable in the real world, or with a simulator/computor better than what i have. It may be possible to have the weights when they are raised on the ascending side, that they do so at a position nearer to the axle, which would be beneficial in reducing the cost of whatever it is they are buying from their fall.
https://youtu.be/LaGYs4fOLwY

[Robinhood46]

If we had arms like MT10 they would have a movement very similar. This would have the weights on the ascending side nearer to the axle as shown in his drawing.
MT10;
"This is just the same as the previous model, except that the
weighted rods are more curved and longer. The principle is good, but
the figure is not yet complete until I illustrate it very differently at the
appropriate place and grasp the correct construction".
Translation from
Maschinen Tractate
Copyright ©2007 John Collins

The weighted rods are more curved and longer, they need to be grasped at the appropriate place, for the construction to be correct.
Are there any other variations of a translation, for this?
Grasping the weighted arms is my biggest problem in the sim world, and it would also be the difficult part in the real world.

[Robinhood46]

Same set up, only with the curved arms. As promised the weights are nearer to the centre on the ascending side. I could get them a lot nearer, but this would need another dimension. The ring of external and internal stops would need to be turn off and onable.
Is there an advantage to connecting them between each other, as in MT10?
Could the figure not being complete mean that these are just the buyers?
https://youtu.be/mC0-uV0HRx0

[Robinhood46]

For those familiar with the Buzzsaw, or the heathen if you prefer, i find this very curious.
The difficulty i had overcoming the dropping back of the weighted arm, was accomplished by adding bigger circular masses (of negligible mass), for the purpose of restricting their movement by not allowing them to pass the weight that is following, and force it back into the compartmented ring.
The Buzzsaw was said to have curvy sausagy thingys and club hammer(s) that assisted the shifting.
Are the pivots i am trying to use the actual weights?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_LbfUWkb00

[Robinhood46]

My runner in the sim world, certainly looks like a program problem, but i am not too sure of how much of the excess force is due to the program problem. Is it a bit of it, a lot of it, or all of it? In all probability it is all of it.
Here is a video where we can, sort of, see the forces in play when we tighten a wheel nut while holding the tyre. The heavy weight is a "bit bouncy' on the way up.
https://youtu.be/TC0CNTRnJ6M

[Robinhood46]

I've worked out the problem with the runner in the sim world.
It "may" be possible to replicate the problem which caused this to run, with springs.
https://youtu.be/FZhxbn7sl_Q

[Robinhood46]

I do think i am getting nearer.
This mechanism isn't exactly what i was hoping to do, but it is the best i can do that functions well enough to share.
The falling lighter weight, in the video, is lifting the heavy weight on the left, and pushing it in the direction of the wheel's rotation. It then shifts the other weight, in the opposite direction of rotation, and the weight lifted from the rim takes it's place.
What i was hoping to do, is to change the weights being lifted, to the other way round.
The falling light weight can lift the heavy weight on the right (as opposed to the left), and push it in the opposite direction of the wheel's rotation. It can then lift it from the rim, pushing the other weight in the direction of rotation. It is like swapping the "hand" of the heavy weight's actions, but keeping the light weight as it is.
The problem being, the weights do not stay where they need to, of their own accord, additional mechanisms are needed, (more moving bits and springy things) which results in nothing functions correctly and everything explodes after 90° of rotation (on a good day)
I'm not too sure where the heavy weights should be doing their thing, nearer to the centre or nearer to the rim?
The light weight could be swinging back and forth in the inner section of the wheel, with the heavy weights being at the rim, or the heavy weights close to the centre, with the light weights at the rim, which i prefer because of the compartments Bessler mentioned at the centre.
https://youtu.be/DX5RrRLkKw4

[Robinhood46]

Bessler spoke of a "grindstone" inside his wheel.
This has always intrigued me, and i have often questioned the translation.
18th century grindstones were often powered by pedals, (the ones for sharpening wood tools and knives etc) I would have thought that this mechanism would have been a reference, at the time. Just as we use a piston as a reference, for a linear movement being transformed into a rotational.
The heavy weight's rotational motion in the video, today, could be seen as a crankshaft being rotated by the linear motion of a piston, through a conrod. The lighter weight's extended arm supplying the linear motion and the connecting linkage being the conrod. This could explain Bessler's wheel having a grindstone.

[WaltzCee]

Bessler spoke of a "grindstone" inside his wheel.

18th century grindstones were often powered by pedals, (the ones for sharpening wood tools and knives etc) I would have thought that this mechanism would have been a reference, at the time.

.

This could explain Bessler's wheel having a grindstone

.

maybe. It might be a reference to the rock the builders rejected.

Let me explain by reason of a question.

If any think they've discovered the principle of perpetual motion, why don't you express that principle mathematically? Then every time mass shows up in your equations replace that with your local currency. For me that's USD. Time remains time.

Now imagine a beast powered by that principle yet instead of clothed in matter, clothe it in paper. Currency.

Now put your beast into the financial octagon, NYSE. THE big board. Roll around with the big boys and see if you can make a profit before they force you out of your positions. These boys have nothing but time. They own that game.

My multifaceted question becomes

• If your principle is valid in mechanics, is it applicable in any power struggle to determine the winner?
  
  does your principle transcend any means or method?
  
  or does your principle give up the ghost?

Do you have enough confidence in your principle to bet the farm?
1/2 the farm??

Edit:

Edit "half is empty and light and the other half is full and heavy".

It is mathematically provable that if you give to someone expecting something in return, your expectation will cost the one you helped in any even exchange.

If you design some condor to descend into NYSE, don't borrow a 2nd of clothing from your broker. Even if they don't charge interest (they do) between the piece of your position they own and time, they will strip you naked.

Half seems to be a recurring theme. Half of my kingdom to any soul who can . . .

never mind.

[johannesbender]

themoneymaker.jpg

[WaltzCee]

I will tangently swing away from the spirit of your response johannesbender, then resurrect it elsewhere for further discussion.

The link

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 0b038acce6

I have a lot to say about this. Please join me.

[Georg Künstler]

There are systems where you have always a winner, and that are the systems which I call the parasitic oscillation.
You can also express this mathematically or you can detect that in our real world.

One is used from our government in a clever way, It is called value added tax(VAT).

If you work and earn some money then the government is the winner with the added tax.
Depending on the state it can be differ from maybe 7 percent to 25 percent.

The condition is either you consume something or you work and then the tax is activated. The parasite.
The winner is the state,

There are two cases how we can transform this parasitic oscillation into a rotating system, as far as I know.
Both are working with an overlay of oscillations so that in the wheel a positive dynamic force will be created.
The first step is to create an asymmetric force. I will prepare an sketch how easy that can be done.