THE wheel fatal flaw that no one notice

[Tarsier79]

What you appear to be investigating is being able to lift a mass to a higher GPE than GPE lost cost of that lift. This I believe is one of the reoccurring 'disconnects' I talk about regularly. In order to get greater height gain than height lost (for the same mass etc) you would have to design a device that breaks Archimedes Law of Levers [ALOL - f1 x d2 = f2 x d1]. And Law of Levers is predicated on a constant 'g' acceleration (because it's weight force and f = m x a), which is conservative precisely because it is constant (at earths surface).

Law of Lever is static.
What result would yield using static in dynamic situation?

The real reason the supposed M.O.W. wheel doesn't work is the same reason "height for width" (even though I don't like the term) mechanisms don't work:
Gravity Torque is measured by the horizontal distance from the axle. Gravity energy is measured by the vertical distance. When a weight drops more than its counterpart, PE is lost and KE enters the system. When a weight rotates around a wheel, it falls just as far as it rises. If weight movement is perfectly efficient, we will have a net loss equal to frictions.

Leafy, That is not a small conversation. Ultimately, your dynamic lever will convert a fixed PE to KE and back again. Leverage applies statically and dynamically. As Fletcher mentioned, Extra energy has to be consumed somewhere to get a gain in KE, GPE, Momentum. So unless an energy source is external or a finite fuel, energy has to be created, requiring a break in known physics. So Bessler apparently found a chink in the physics armour, or he was a fraud.

Where do you theorize that is coming from in your design Leafy?

Pequade here always confused energy with leverage(as he still does on OU.com), and it is easy to see why. It is a pity I have not had time and resources to test more of his theories.

[Leafy]

Law of lever required known forces on both sides and the distances.

Sure we know the distance but do we really know the forces by picture? In dynamic situation, the forces keep changing and that is an unknown.

It’s like GPE drops and gain with mass changing at the same time. To correctly use law of the lever you need to put thousands of micro seconds together to solve the problem rather than assumed oh, energy is conserved.

[daxwc]

Fletcher: My reasoning is that ALOL is an unimpeachable Law, IMO. And as so, for a runner to gain movement / momentum, with complete internal masses GPE restoration within the closed cycle runner, then as far as I can see there is only one avenue to that end in a gravity-only environment. The introduction of excess-momentum (via surplus torque impulse) to the runner from the Prime-Mover design and actions. If the runner has excess-movement then all internal masses (Prime-Mover et al) will automatically be restored into position of full potential and all GPE's replenished, and ALOL will never be violated, or ever need to be violated.

Interesting; any suspects of this "surplus torque impulse"? Not sure what you are talking about. Swinging mass in a rotating frame of reference?

[Tarsier79]

It’s like GPE drops and gain with mass changing at the same time. To correctly use law of the lever you need to put thousands of micro seconds together to solve the problem rather than assumed oh, energy is conserved.

Exactly. If you think you have a way around it, you should test in the real world.

Your weight on a spring: Its KE at any time is a product of its GPE and its Stored PE in the spring.... so...Can the spring + weight KE = more GPE on the other weight? I guess that is what you are aiming at. I am a big fan of testing first principles... IE don't mount your mechanism on a wheel. You can accurately measure weight positions and movements. Any input you insert needs to be measured also. (drop a known weight a known distance).

Good luck.

[Leafy]

KE depends on frame of reference.

Like I said this is a dynamic situation.

I’m all about freedom. Everyone can do whatever he wants. I don’t like the notion of burden of proof. It can be use as a tool to rob freedom.

[Tarsier79]

KE depends on frame of reference.

It doesn't in my experience.

As you said, anyone is free to do whatever. Personally, I like burden of proof. If you physically and mathematically prove a gain, a wheel will nearly build itself.

[Leafy]

KE depends on frame of reference.

It doesn't in my experience.

This is where it ends and let other do their personal judging. If I required your proof and you required mine, we’ll both just be in a mess doesn’t matter who’s right. Let’s be happy.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Leafy,
Right, the burden of proof; a giant f@cken weight for you an none for the other guy. I get it all the time. However, I don't think levers will work either, I tried for 5 years. Or, I don't know how to do it-----------------------------Sam

[Fletcher]

Fletcher: My reasoning is that ALOL is an unimpeachable Law, IMO. And as so, for a runner to gain movement / momentum, with complete internal masses GPE restoration within the closed cycle runner, then as far as I can see there is only one avenue to that end in a gravity-only environment. The introduction of excess-momentum (via surplus torque impulse) to the runner from the Prime-Mover design and actions. If the runner has excess-movement then all internal masses (Prime-Mover et al) will automatically be restored into position of full potential and all GPE's replenished, and ALOL will never be violated, or ever need to be violated.

Interesting; any suspects of this "surplus torque impulse"?

Yes, early in the year I arrived at a simple(ish) mechanism/assembly that "seems" to have the potential for what I seek. It requires a real-world build and lots of testing before I am 100% confident it can reliably do what I think it can do, and crank an OB wheel around to gain momentum, as I've described needs to happen. It's shifting up the priority queue for this summer as I refine it further and look at store-available products that I can adapt, for a real-world test.

TBO, I've been coasting thru the year letting it sink in and variously trying to find the fallacy of the argument and the fault in the mech. And get a bead on some sort of coherent math that might start to explain its behaviour, if it should work out.

Not sure what you are talking about. Swinging mass in a rotating frame of reference?

That would seem a reasonable deduction dax. I would say my apparatus is more nuanced than a simple "swinging mass in a rotating frame of reference" analogy, but that is the guts of the matter all the same.

[Leafy]

I don’t know what people seek PM for? Energy? It cost 10 cents for 1 kWh. That’s 3.6 mega joules. If you work for $10/hour, you can buy 360 mega joules. Lol

Knowledge? Power? Relief stress for others? Seems like we already fail on the later so I guess it’s power then.

Back to the lever. Like I say, we standing still so we have no KE. But we’re rolling with the earth at 3k m/h so we have KE. Either way is correct.

The thing with the rubber band lever is the right mass and the left mass can have different speed of no proportion while law of lever assumed that right and left mass speed is proportional to its length.

When stretched by the rubber band the right mass can have 0 speed and the left mass could move at very high speed. Gravity is then input a force at zero speed and gain momentum at different speed.

[daxwc]

Fletcher: Yes, early in the year I arrived at a simple(ish) mechanism/assembly that "seems" to have the potential for what I seek.

I figured you were sniffing around something with your disappearance and reading between the lines on your latest comments. Good luck bud, you deserve it.

[Fletcher]

Thanx for the kind words dax .. my 'disappearance' was just the first opportunity to get back to Fiji after 3 years away from the property - since I'm a dual citizen I could stay until all the work was done that I needed to do, hence 3 & 1/2 months away. No ulterior motives lol. In fact I hardly thought about Bessler and his wheels, or anything to do with them. To busy being in the moment and solving the problems in front of me. Having no smart phone or internet and email etc kinda of forced my hand to get my head in another space quickly.

If you were wondering my mech looks good in my mind sim (don't they always ;7). I haven't been able to virtual-world sim all of it because when I bring it all together it crashes my sim. Too many moving parts. I've simplified as much as I dare to atm, because if I go too far I have to remove an important element and function and replace it, so I can't trust the sims output integrity with the usual simplification techniques. Yet the idea is quite straight forward and I will find a way to build it for testing at some stage. Then, as always, the rubber meets the road and there is no place to hide.

My comments for quite a while have been to gently (ok - sometimes not so gently) push everyone to the Toy's Page for the answer exclusively to the Prime Mover. Not an OB wheel, just and only the Prime Mover. And that first means letting go of the fallacy of breaking the Law of Levers and the OB wheel. So much time has been wasted, by so many, for so long with OB wheels.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher,
What toy, if there is one, on the toys page, is a clue to a prime mover, or a clue to anything, for that matter? Also, how can you separate a prime mover, from being an OB wheel? Aren't the two, one and the same? I mean, how can you have one without the other----------------Sam

[Fletcher]

Fletcher,

What toy, if there is one, on the toys page, is a clue to a prime mover, or a clue to anything, for that matter?

Hi Sam .. imo, it is not 1 toy in the TP that is the Prime Mover, but elements from of all of them that assemble into the Prime Mover apparatus. As applies to the one-way and two-way runner wheel formats that B. had.

That is why there are plural toy illustrations shown on that page. And the mention in B's. associated comments about something extraordinary for anyone who knows how to apply THEM in a different way.

Perhaps I misunderstand you and you're suggesting that 1 toy potentially is the Prime Mover and the others are there as distractions to hide amongst. IMO, not every toy, or even just 1, is a stand alone Prime Mover in and of itself. Imo, they are mostly mechanical metaphors and symbology for critical parts within the Prime Mover. When brought together coherently and combined correctly, the Prime Mover parts form a single entity with 'extraordinary' mechanical outcomes in the context of searching for a runner motive force.

Obviously, I am not ready yet to disclose my Prime Mover assembly / entity in all its glory, or not, as the case may be (very simple) .. that may change as things develop and results come in.

Also, how can you separate a prime mover, from being an OB wheel? .. Aren't the two, one and the same? .. I mean, how can you have one without the other----------------Sam

For me it goes back to a basic philosophy Sam .. OB wheels are conservative - they can not replenish their GPE when energy losses are considered. Some of those being frictional losses, such as windage, and pivot frictions etc, static and rolling frictions, sound etc. There are many ways for an OB wheel to lose energy. And their mechanical operations are governed by the Law of Levers which put simply is a proportional relationship between lever length and force applied which is also conservative.

As I said in earlier posts a runner needs additional movement / momentum per cycle so that the runner gains in momentum and RKE; AND restores GPE in its closed path cycle. A single entity OB wheel can not do this (regardless of how many mechs), ever, no matter how clever the mechanics ! However I think it likely possible that a bare minimum 1 Prime Mover entity can self-start and sustain its own repeating and building movement and momentum gain with some complementary mechanics (albeit turn very slowly). As I mentioned perhaps just the single rim-fixed ball simple pendulum analogy, which would technically make it a very simple OB wheel indeed. It might not even need that to generate its motive force and becomes self-moving. Which means you might be able to have the Prime Mover without the other, in the sense of a classic OB wheel, imo at this time.

As I said earlier B. wanted the kudos and fame from solving the age old problem of a self-moving OB wheel. This is how he could claim to have solved it (rightly so) - by cobbling the Prime Mover to ANY OB wheel. I presume you are familiar with MT's 44 and 48. Simple ball transfer systems, and not a lever in sight. One glance and you know they can not be runners. Yet he added something mechanical to them to turn ordinary conservative OB wheels into runners. IMO that was the Prime Mover entity (of many parts) that provided the motive force to become runners.

[Sam Peppiatt]

I see the difference, Fletcher. Now I know what you mean. Maybe you're right----------------Sam