THE wheel fatal flaw that no one notice

[spinner361]

I am interested in linear propulsion by moving mass. Is there anyone making progress on this?

[Tarsier79]

So far, I have not seen anyone successful in this. I have seen a mechanical propulsion, but I think they run on frictions, inefficiencies and wind resistance, so I wouldn't call any of them "inertial propulsion" and I doubt any of them would work in space.

[spinner361]

It seems like the same problem, but the circle is closed up. It needs a lot of gain.

[johannesbender]

IF Besslers wheel ran on an inertial/momentum gain, theoretically the same principle should be able to be implemented in inertial propulsion, anti gravity, and my favourite, a small powerful CF engine. It would truly open up the floodgates for technology.

If it ran on stealing Earth momentum, we probably wouldn't want to make them too powerful or numerous.

JB, I would be interested if you explained your designs.

sure , they were based on the principle similar to what you would find in a RB , where the resultant downward force on the arm is irrelevant to the position of the mass because the moment is prevented to manifest around the main pivot .

Position of mass C is irrelevant as shown by FC , and the resultant ,where FA and FB are prevented .

a.png

b.png

c.png

So the designs used this , trying to cheat the work required across the distances between two radius .
As can be seen that A=B=C , so distance made up by positioning the mass A or B or C does not affect the result.

1.png

2.png

So in the design imagine , if 1 mass were on crossbar E at the top and another on crossbar D at the bottom , E would be the larger radius , and D would be the lesser radius of a lever , the figure would cause a torque.

To try and move the masses between two radiuses (lifting) requires energy that usually is not available (as you know).

So if instead of the mass moving from the crossbar D at the top to the crossbar E at the top to gain GPE , and from crossbar E at the bottom to crossbar D at the bottom to gain GPE , there are arms F extending to G attached at D , and since if a mass is placed at any position on those arms , the resultant is equal to the same mass placed at crossbar D , the distance and work required from D to E can be "cheated" by moving the mass between Arm F and E instead .

In this design example the masses "falls" from the inner D radius to the outer E radius , and from the outer E to the inner D.

3.png

However as seen this example were a failure , because there is a requirement to rotate the arms around to place the masses at the correct position .

[Leafy]

Here is a space propulsion system I envision:

Point A fire a mass to D(down) and reflect back and captured at B. The ship moves to the right and spin the disk.

When B swap position with A. Mass is fired to U(up) and reflect and captured at new A. The ship then again moves to the right and spin the disk counter.

Keep doing that and we propel ourselves through space.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fantastic Leafy! But shouldn't they both fire at the same time? The back force is directed 90 degrees to the direction of travel, to circumvent action / reaction. I think this is the clue to inertial propulsion-------------------Sam

PS I think you are a visionary!! Light speed and beyond----------------------

[Sam Peppiatt]

spinner361,
I worked on it a lot before I started on Bessler's wheel. Some how action / reaction has to be circumvented. You have to push off from some thing. I think a clue to it, is to push off 90 degrees to the direction of travel, as leafy shows. But, how, I don't know--------------Sam

[Leafy]

Hi Sam,

You have to get the mass back to the right to shoot again. We use the disk and ship rotation so we don’t kill the linear space we achieve.

If we shoot both at the same time, the mass has to go linear to get back to its position and this would push the ship back to its original position.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Leafy,
Couldn't the mass be brought back quite slowly with minimal effect------------------------Sam

[WaltzCee]

. .. .. .
Oh the vicissitudes (one for Walt to discuss ;7) of unconfirmed theories.
. .. .. .

Well, since you asked.

Approaches to the Discovery of Perpetual Motion

TLTR

The end

I suppose Bessler's clues aren't all about PM. I haven't studied Bessler much at all, yet I usually kind of pay attention when something is discussed. Some things stick in my mind.

Hearing someone's theory is one thing yet having it ramed down one's throat is beyond annoying. Makes you want to choke the living dog mess out of someone.

Eventually it gets to the point where a person has to actually do the work and build it. Let me use my ideas as an example.

• a) I don't think gravity is a conservative force.
  b) I suppose a PM machine to be an analog computer that can prove a)

by considering the center of rotation as the equal sign of the equation, then adding or subtracting forces to produce an imbalance that causes a perpetual, everlasting, eternal rotation!!

Believe me or be fed to the lions.

[WaltzCee]

My theory (gravity isn't a conservative force) is in part based on the idea that given an orbital system, if one doubles the radius, there is 4 times the area.

Now if the rotating mass describes a sphere, there is 8 times the volume. That is the basis behind my Large Scale Atomic Model where by I attempt to cause the mass to jump to a higher electron cloud then fall back to a lower one.

The idea (not novel) is to pit varying electron shells against one another causing the nucleus of the LSAM to spin like a . .. .. . ,
A good simile escapes me.

I hope you get the picture.

[Leafy]

Leafy,
Couldn't the mass be brought back quite slowly with minimal effect------------------------Sam

Can’t Sam. Consider a train, you shoot from the front and catch it on the back of the train. You moved, now as you try to move the mass back to the front, the train moves back to its position. The faster you move the mass back, the faster the train restores its position. The slower you move the mass back, the train just restores its position slower. That’s why restores the mass in linear manner is a no no.

[Sam Peppiatt]

leafy,
You lost me------------------Sam

[Fletcher]

. .. .. .
Oh the vicissitudes (one for Walt to discuss ;7) of unconfirmed theories.
. .. .. .

Well, since you asked.

Approaches to the Discovery of Perpetual Motion

TLTR

The end

I suppose Bessler's clues aren't all about PM. I haven't studied Bessler much at all, yet I usually kind of pay attention when something is discussed. Some things stick in my mind.

Hearing someone's theory is one thing yet having it rammed down one's throat is beyond annoying. Makes you want to choke the living dog mess out of someone.

Eventually it gets to the point where a person has to actually do the work and build it. Let me use my ideas as an example.

• a) I don't think gravity is a conservative force.
  b) I suppose a PM machine to be an analog computer that can prove a)

by considering the center of rotation as the equal sign of the equation, then adding or subtracting forces to produce an imbalance that causes a perpetual, everlasting, eternal rotation!!

Believe me or be fed to the lions.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My theory (gravity isn't a conservative force) is in part based on the idea that given an orbital system, if one doubles the radius, there is 4 times the area.

Now if the rotating mass describes a sphere, there is 8 times the volume. That is the basis behind my Large Scale Atomic Model where by I attempt to cause the mass to jump to a higher electron cloud then fall back to a lower one.

The idea (not novel) is to pit varying electron shells against one another causing the nucleus of the LSAM to spin like a . .. .. . ,
A good simile escapes me.

I hope you get the picture.

I do Walt .. your theory is that gravity force (mass x acceleration) is not a conservative force, tho mass and acceleration ['g'] do not change. And if you get a device that manifests an unequal force at the axle, and causes it to gain revolutions, then it will prove that gravity force is not conservative.

You'd have a lot of company with that theory Walt.

You then suggest that internal masses can be lifted at less cost (shell theory) than the rotational energy and momentum they then by virtue of position impart to the wheel causing a building of imbalance force and further rotation - simile required.

Also you'd have a lot of company there.

I wonder if your mechanical application 'low cost for high gain' theory is thru breaking the Law of Levers, or something else entirely ?

Regardless .. you have covered off the 2 important areas required.

1. where does the energy come from to be self-moving ? Ans : non-conservative gravity force.
2. a theory is only a theory until a device is built that proves the working theory is correct - the "do the work and build it" POP supporting the theory with irrefutable proof.

Anecdotally most people can get to stage 1. -- but have trouble completing stage 2.

It could be that building skills are not up to the job .. or .. not too many are keen on stress-testing the theory to a physical conclusion.

[spinner361]

I think that gravity is a conservative force. I am not trying to argue. It is just that I have ran a lot of experiments, and I do not see a way around it.