Sam Peppiatt wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 5:57 pm
Good & Bad
Wheel not working but, may have the right concept. Only two moving parts a roller and a lever, not counting the spring. No radius changes, no other weights moving around and, the operation is more or less continuous. Good foreword torque but, back torque as well. Also, mechanical problems; (a lot of friction).
Will work on the mechanical problems. Not sure about the back torque. What to about that-------------Sam
Hi Waltcy,
Not much artistry to it, as Besler would say. Also, I like the idea of using the force of gravity to do work. This is a big departure from the concept of falling weights / kinetic energy, to turn the wheel.
Maybe it's a change for the better-------------------Sam
No, I don't think so.
A bell crank is just that. A lever that redirects a force. It doesn't add force or energy.
I believe Sam already posted it didn't work ? How can you squeeze energy from a so-called gradient between TE and RKE? They're parts of the same package.
No, I don't think so.
A bell crank is just that. A lever that redirects a force. It doesn't add force or energy.
I believe Sam already posted it didn't work ? How can you squeeze energy from a so-called gradient between TE and RKE? They're parts of the same package.
So TE and RKE can't be differentiated?
Yes, but even though they’re different from each other doesn’t mean they have a gradient to squeeze, does it?
Last edited by eccentrically1 on Tue Sep 26, 2023 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
How about using the force of gravity to drive the wheel?
Doesn't that eliminate the zero sum game? The problem of the deficit of energy, that scientist always use to claim PPM to be impossible.
There's no shortage to the force of gravity, is there-----------------------Sam
Last edited by Sam Peppiatt on Wed Sep 27, 2023 11:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
Sam,
It's been decided that it isn't possible, to do that.
There are even arguments that are considered to explain why it isn't possible.
Once it was considered that we were intelligent enough to know if PM was, or was not, possible, we were forced to "pick a side". The other option was that we are still "too stupid" to know one way or the other. The idea that we were still lacking the knowledge to make that decision, was a preposterous idea, because we knew so much and knew that what we knew was correct.
So we needed to either acknowledge that PM is possible, which means we are too stupid to work our how to do it.
Or, we needed to acknowledge that it was impossible, which means we are intelligent enough to work it out. it's the impossibility, that is the reason we can't do it, not our insufficient knowledge.
The arguments that we use, that are considered to prove that PM is impossible, do not prove that PM is impossible. They simply convince us that they are proof it is impossible. Convincing ourselves that PM is impossible, isn't the same as proving that PM is impossible. It is because of cognitive bias, that we confuse the two.
Gravity can (it is allowed to) cause a wheel to turn. There is nothing that stops it from doing so, other than the limitations in our understanding, which makes it impossible for us to make it happen.
Waltcy,
I'm wondering the same thing. It does away with the idea of lifting and falling weights. What I was suggesting is, or trying to suggest is; trying to harness the energy of falling weights is impossible, just as scientists have been saying all along.
Where as, using the direct force of gravity, to turn the wheel is possible. Maybe that's how it was done---------Sam
>I agree. I think a design's complexity & its chance of success are inversely proportional.
Bingo! Looking back at my plethora of failures led me to the same conclusion. We are trying to create something out of nothing and there is literally nothing there by which to use to accomplish the task of recreating a Bessler style wheel.
Creating rotation from a downward force is much like a water wheel where the water is going down and making the water wheel spin. In fact, my latest idea has just that where there is a force, driven by gravity, that wants to go down on just one side of the wheel. Basically that is the premise behind all wheel mechanisms.
Even though I've been told that off-center rotation is not the solution, the path it sent me down has led me to an idea that is really quite simple, but ignored by many. If you look at a typical wheel attempt, people are all giggity about having the weight distributed symmetrically from the center and then they hope to flip and flop or shift the weights to accomplish their goal. It ain't gonna happen.
But if you design your 2-weight mechanism asymmetrically, then you can make it so that in the descending configuration, it goes wholly imbalanced to the point of overwhelmingly so, but as it goes inverted on the ascending side, it flops into a balanced configuration and right there is the magic because it leaves one side imbalanced and the other side balanced. I think that is what Bessler alluded to when he made mention why he suddenly knew why ALL his previous attempts had failed...one blatant commonality...they all rotated centrally. Once you come to that realization, now you can focus on designing wheels that are super duper overly sensitive to balance and more importantly, compounded over-balance.
You can liken it to having a car where you remove the ability to turn left, but what you lose there can be added to turning right twice as hard to the point where you can spin on a dime. You don't really lose anything - you can accomplish your goal via a different way.
How you lift a weight is by putting it into balance on the ascent so that the imbalance of the next weight set is used to lift it. It's a package deal where all weight mechanisms work together to help lift each other up. Balanced going up, imbalanced going down.
There might be a point where the ascending weight is creating some back torque, but the imbalance of the other weight sets causes it to want to climb up the ascending side until bam...it flops into balance and no longer causes an issue.
Start with just 2 weights and work your way up from there.
