Part Three is the Charm

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher,
The ring and rollers are a simple machine. A here to for unknown simple machine. Completely unknown to man kind, (except maybe for Bessler), It's totally unknown to science, that's what makes it so difficult to under stand.. You proved your self, they always remain balanced at all times, as the wheel turns. That means they can lift weights with only, ordinary friction losses, virtually cost free.

They have the unique ability to do the impossible. And, that is to lift the weights back up. I wish you or some else, could under stand it--------------------Sam

[Tarsier79]

Sam. I think you should lower your expectations on this mechanism.

It is not that difficult to understand. It is not that unique. It's ability to do work is predictable and measureable.

This mechanism will not lead to, or contribute to a working Bessler wheel. I doubt Bessler used it, but he might have used it/or it could be substituted in place of any other driven OB mechanism.

[Fletcher]

Sam .. respectfully, get your 13 year old granddaughter or neighbour to make and post a picture or photograph of your setup for you - I can attempt to sim what you are talking about but no one can seem to grasp the detail of but you ..

It's simply an honest communication and comprehension problem that can be easily remedied with a diagram, if you want to solve it ..

I sim built your 'disks with flats' from your verbal description and with some input from others - but I have no idea how you are using and applying SB's as 'toggles' to move things around to your benefit - you obviously have the build there before your eyes ..

** fwiw as I've said many times a SB doesn't have to be a series of <xxxx>, just 1 large X - because the leverage factors are the same whether multi-sectioned or not ..

>> failing that maybe someone else can describe the detail of what you are proposing, enough for me to attempt a sim if that is what you would like ..

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher,
Yes, I think you are right, one great big "X". That's a good idea. II think it would be easier to do. Why couldn't I think of that? It has to be done over anyway. I think you are right.

I suppose you're right about every thing----------------Sam

[Fletcher]

Sam .. it will take just one mechanical device to prove a runner - then we'll all know for sure .. all I and others are attempting to do is identify and define the problems we face so that we can perhaps concentrate our efforts where they are more needed ..

A simplistic analogy might be .. we are collectively playing a game of darts - we need to throw a high score but low percentage shot bullseye to exit the game - we know the bullseye is there somewhere but disguised or obscured, we don't know where .. so we deduce after identifying the radial pattern of wedges and rings, and numbering pattern, that the bullseye is in the very middle of the board .. that's where we should probably aim ..

[Sam Peppiatt]

Oh hi Tarsier,
Sorry, I missed your post. OK. I concede defeat--------------------------Sam

[WaltzCee]

I think Sam's idea is there's a difference, some potential, between translational & rotational energies in a gravitational field. I agree with that.

I can readily see Fletcher's point, needing a graphic to efficiently move forward with a SIM. Often when I'd SIM, I'd first draw it out pencilling key measurements, just to get critical ideas defined.

I'm not proud to admit it yet at times I'd resort to cheating. I'd use trig-eometry in my calculus.

• Euclid: you got calculus in my trig-eometry!
  Newton: you left out calculus in Pythagoras'algebra!
  Euclid: no I did not. :)
  Newton: So you admit to stealing from Pythagoras?

Pardon the geeking.

I see both points. We might have to take a sword and cut this baby in to twos! To two two, or not. What a question.

I'll wait for calmer minds to prevail.

[Robinhood46]

The way i see it, is that Tarsier is commenting on his perception of what you are doing, or trying to do.
Until we can fully understand exactly what it is you are talking about, i don't think we can make such a categorical statement. At least i certainly wouldn't. Tarsier is free to share his thoughts just as any of us are.
One of the most common difficulties to overcome is communication, we are often estimating the value of our interpretation of someone else's thoughts, and generally they only resemble the original thoughts to a certain degree.
We definitely need some more information to know exactly what it is you are talking about Sam.

[Tarsier79]

Sorry, I missed your post. OK. I concede defeat--------------------------Sam

That was not my intention..... Science says categorically PM is not possible. We all don't listen to everyone, even perhaps the people we should be listening to. If my view is different to yours, at least one of us doesn't get why it will or won't work. Your build will prove it either way.

You should learn from your builds, and understand the underlying reason they fail. Everyone does have different perspective, so most people will "understand" it differently. Regardless of my understanding, or perceived understanding, you should persue your idea until you understand why it does what it does.

They have the unique ability to do the impossible. And, that is to lift the weights back up. I wish you or some else, could under stand it--------------------Sam

In this case, I am not saying don't build it. You can be positive about your build, but don't get your hopes up too high, and be prepared for it not to work. I have been and might be over excited about a build in the future..... What I am trying to say, I have been where you have been, as have most of us.

The odds are against us solving this problem. Have fun building, and have fun learning. Good luck.

[agor95]

Hello johannesbender

That the "gravity wheel" problem is an inertial interaction problem , and what demonstrable physics example correlates to a wheel ?

I expect we should spend some time looking at simple physics problems as they confine a solution to what is possible.

We agree any movement of an inertial mass will have losses. The well known non-conservative forces via inertial interactions
could be thought of as a problem.

As described the only way to deal with this problem is to add more momentum.

The only source of momentum at hand is what is referred to as 'acceleration due to gravity'.

Another simple physics problem is a ball held at wast height.

This needs a minimum amount of work to hold it stationary.
When a ball is moved from side to side and then back to it's starting position more work is required than a stationary ball.

It is also true there is less loss of energy as the ball does not vibrate due to the bounce.

Therefore there is a requirement to not move the ball from it's natural path and to gain momentum to compensate for non-conservative losses.

So reducing non-conservatives losses by oiling bearing and placing a cover over the rotating device too reduce aerodynamics drag appears to be a good choice.

Back to part of the statement 'demonstrable physics example'. That is not a simple physics problem.
But we are all working either to solve it your get someone to solve it for use.

[johannesbender]

I think the bunch of us understand the problem/s well enough , KE out is never more than PE in.

If you ever picked up a ball or watched basketball players or tennis players , to keep the ball bouncing back up high enough you hit it with some surplus energy , and as long as you keep hitting it into the ground every time it comes up , so long it would continue the cycle.

In that example you are giving it extra KE , however if you stop hitting it on its way down/up and just let gravity take care of its energy , then ofcourse due to the energy loss its evident the cycle would keep losing energy .

PE to KE and KE back to PE.

I mean i dont think this example has to be written out because everyone knows this like the palm of their hands , there are certain things that need to happen if such a cycle is to reset or continue , one example everyone knows about is a surplus energy from something else , etc....

I like a non rotational example , because i cant use an excuse and say but torque is different or rotational KE is special and sacret , and that gravity itself chooses to act different when it spots a wheel , the extra considerations fly out the window however the problem still remains.

[agor95]

...
I like a non rotational example ...

I also see no need to stick to a rotational example. I do stick to very many short linier paths.

Also you are right there is no need to spell out the partial conversion of these two energy types.
For me one of them is fictitious.

So we are looking for a path of compound line sections that follow a least work trajectory.
Where the condition that the momentum of a mass must be greater on each pass of a small shared volume [looping].

We may as well include; The more joins we have increase the non-conservative losses.

[johannesbender]

...
I like a non rotational example ...

I also see no need to stick to a rotational example. I do stick to very many short linier paths.

Also you are right there is no need to spell out the partial conversion of these two energy types.
For me one of them is fictitious.

So we are looking for a path of compound line sections that follow a least work trajectory.
Where the condition that the momentum of a mass must be greater on each pass of a small shared volume [looping].

We may as well include; The more joins we have increase the non-conservative losses.

I get that the solution was rotational or as far as we know was rotational even though the problem is not a rotational one ...

Talking about least work ,so my oppinion on this is perhaps different but , for an example of the issue , if as stated that energy cannot be created nor destroyed :
If i may use something familiar mentioned by Bessler for the example , a ladder .

You are on top of a ladder 8 steps high ,it does not matter how you got up there in the first place , people usually lift their weights up and place them on their wheels in high positions anyway .

So the rule is as follow , you are allowed to climb down by stepping 8 times (PE to KE) , when you reach the bottom you are allowed to only climb back up to the start by stepping only 7 times (KE with its losses being less limits the reachable TRAVERSABLE PE ).

You can step 7 times up and reach the 7th step on the ladder , that being 1 step lower than the starting 8th step you started at , without any problem .

But the catch here is , you MUST reach the same height you started from .

So if w=f*d , how do you do it ? :)

[Sam Peppiatt]

johannesbender,
Ring & Rollers will work, unless you can find a better way--------------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

Follow up,
To get any work done, ( by gravity), heavy weights have to shift around inside of the wheel. That's what the Ring & Rollers do. They, the rollers, shift around inside of the wheel, never causing any imbalance, and do the heavy work of lifting the weights up, that do drive the wheel.
Aren't the lights ever going to come on. for any one--------------------------Sam