THE wheel fatal flaw that no one notice

[johannesbender]

Agreed Fletcher , something is missing from the total equation .

[agor95]

Not to over think this mind simulation I reduce it to the above.

When the same mass is placed at the start of each arc.
I imagine in my mind simulation that acceleration due to gravity moves the axle up.
Or if you wish the mass down; it's all relative.

The acceleration naturally is vertical and with no extra external input the mass
is stationary in my perceptional view. However the axle move up and tows the mass so the distant is kept the same.

Both masses are towed at different angle purely by their position from the axle.

The pull to the left decreases as the pull up increases due to this position.

This simple mind simulation explains the motion of a pendulum.

Take your time; you should be able to imagine that the acceleration at any position
is based on the angle of the tow. However the distance from the axle affects the arc length.

So the time of the pendulum swing is related to arc length.

This process above is conservative. Also has a hidden force structural stress and mass only affect that only.

What about torque in relation to acceleration?

If you load the same torque on both arcs then their acceleration will be supplemented by a little extra.
Then when you look at the increase in angle from the axle to mass the larger length. The angle is less.

Than people start down the more torque required mind set.

This post just shows the inner workings of my mind simulator.

Regards

[Fletcher]

Agreed Fletcher , something is missing from the total equation .

.....

Simple Equation to describe the purely mechanical oddity of B's OU ...

1 + ? = 2

.....

1 = Any OB wheel (generic)
? = Prime Mover
2 = An innately self-moving wheel assembly that is capable of doing Work (& does not contribute to CO2 emissions)

:7)

[spinner361]

Can you give some examples of generic overbalanced wheels?

[Fletcher]

Yes, most of the MT's that are in the first 54 i.e. one's that don't include environmental forces such as ambient diurnal temperature and air pressure changes such as a Cox clock or Drebbel's PMM.

IOW's, any purely mechanical temporary OB wheel (of various groups and operational DNA) that is not self-sustaining without the addition of the secret Prime Mover mechanism, and which can be found in abundance on this site and others, and in the historical context.

And for which there are no unique features to redeem itself and transform itself into a bona-fide viable runner because they ALL lack a specific and unique mechanical Prime Mover apparatus to sufficiently animate it.

[agor95]

What can we make the Prime Mover from?

After all analysis done so far we find no mechanical combination that acts like a Prime Mover.

There has not been a dynamic interaction of mechanical components to OU.

So excluding both the physical and the structural motion; one is left with what?

Regards

[johannesbender]

To expand on the type of marble machine design Bessler showed and Fletcher mentioned the references to , I went through some major calculation to find geometry and angles and mechanical advantage ratios and speed ratios that can also produce a course for "marble" weights to complete a path from start back to start , the most perfect marble type designs I could conjure up , to see if I can better Bessler's designs , and in the end they leave you with no torque advantage to drive the thing .

Just some examples of how deep I dug ..

[johannesbender]

Moving to general design territory , IMO, you either have case 1 where there is a drive torque with no possible reset in a design , or you have case 2 where there is a reset 'able design but no drive torque , the only thing really stopping motion in a case 2 design is back torque , I doubt removing back torque from a case 1 design would solve it not being resettable.

[agor95]

Moving to general design territory.

Good presentation and again my blender skills are in question.

Regards

[spinner361]

Fletcher, I have heard the idea of adding one additional mechanism to an MT to make it a runner. I really do not think so.

[Leafy]

Fletcher, I have heard the idea of adding one additional mechanism to an MT to make it a runner. I really do not think so.

I think it’s possible.

That one component is a rebound component, spring of sort.

[spinner361]

Leafy, I am interested in seeing what you come up with. Hopefully someday you will be able to tell me why the weight is stuck in the corner.

You have good energy. I strongly suggest getting some simulation software. Without running any experiments, if you do come across an answer, how will you know?

[Leafy]

Spinner,

The weight stuck in the corner because there is nothing heavy enough to lift it up.

Come on, I theorized, draw, calculate, proposed and you want me to do sim too? I’m just trying to give jobs to others lol

[spinner361]

Leafy, you are doing great. Do whatever you want.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher, I have heard the idea of adding one additional mechanism to an MT to make it a runner. I really do not think so.

First .. thanks jb for your input on the marble / ball wheel designs you investigated. My findings over the years also. The scientific fraternity is correct ! The path a mass / weight takes is entirely irrelevant in a closed system. All that matters to Nature is the vertical height lost and gained. With gained never exceeding that lost (or torque induced velocity (KE) is never greater than GPE lost in energy terms). The constant conundrum and bane of the popular and traditional mechanical OU approach and seeker.

.....................

Spinner .. I had to think about how to answer you on your above statement. I'll keep it short. [ Everything is of course my opinion ]. I believe that many of us suffer from a logic disconnect, that often we can't get around or over, in our search for B's. mechanical solution to a self-sustaining wheel. We lack perspective and objectivity in many cases.

We need to face facts and try to see the disconnect for what it is and then see beyond it. Here are some things that may influence your future thinking, and help avoid the mind trap, or not ;7)

1. B. was VERY secretive about his solution.

2. Karl said it was easy to understand and simple to build, but offered no greater or exuberant endorsement in terms of rare genius required, or complexity etc. In fact the opposite. He was surprised no-one else had thought of it !

3. For thousands of years, thousands of mechanics and tinkerers have sort the answer to the perpetually turning wheel using purely mechanical principles. Some were achieved with environmental forces, to be fair. ALL others were failures with the exception of B. Hundreds today still pursue the same quest with abject failure after failure. It is not lack of effort, skills, education, or technology, that thwarts them.

4. B. teases us with comments associated with 2 ball transfer systems (MT's 44 & 48). These simple devices are easy to understand and equally easy to understand why they cannot work (just read the Museum of Unworkable Devices). They can never work ! Yet, apparently with additional mechanics they can be turned into runners - so it is not the method of weight shifting that is important, but the additional mechanical application applied to the system to make it viable and animate it. The deduction is that just about ANY weight shifting OB system can be made to be viable with the "bolt-on" addition of the Prime Mover (first mover).

5. B. only mentions the Prime Mover once - in MT15, where he says nothing can be seen or deduced about from the illustration. The message is clear that there IS A SEPARATE PRIME MOVER to be incorporated ! At a glance it can be seen that the rods etc must be lifted to replenish GPE, just like MT13 shows and says. [ see point 1. - B. is very secretive - misdirection ]

My list is not exhaustive but it will do for now. The objective is to provide perspective. What you do with that insight, and whether you take it on board, is up to you.

:7)