Zeroing in on Bessler's wheel

[WaltzCee]

.
.
Agor, could you be a honey & walk around the class & inspect everyone's pencil. Make sure they're nice & sharp & pointy?

[WaltzCee]

.
.

But what do i know... if it's this complex, I will contend WC's announcement by saying we will not see a solution this year.

Depends on how you define 'we', Jubat. If 'we' includes 'me', well then 'we' have a chance of seeing some results this year.

LSAM 2.0 © is predicated on the principle like begats like, or

• Intrinsic to the very fabric of 4-d time & space are the germs of creation!

LSAM 1.0 © is a mechanical monstrosity, yet I think I've reduced it to it's essential motions.

[JUBAT]

I was thinking in terms of collectively on this forum that we all will not see a solution this year. That's because with only 2.5 months left in the year, I haven't seen anything including my own designs that I think are anything close to the solution.

I'm slowly edging every closer to the perpetual motion is not possible belief simply because I poured my all into it thinking that somehow there must be a solution that could be solved. The solution would have to be something that simply defies logic and more importantly...defies physics. That's a pretty big ask...to say that a piece of machinery can defy physics.

I'm still left stymied by how Bessler did it, but since all the original players are dead and gone, I'm content at saying it was simply folklore to keep bored people entertained.

Humankind is supposed to be smarter than ever before...and man has gone to the moon and back numerous times, sent satellites into outer space, and now we have computers and smart phones...yet the Einsteins and Teslas of the world couldn't even come close to something as amazing as what Bessler was purported to have built?

It's kind of fun trying until you start to suspect you've been pranked, punked, and fooled. Then it isn't fun any more.

I'm saying right now - when the clock clicks over to Jan 1, 2024 it will be no different than right now at this very moment with no working wheel and no working solution. I have $100 bucks in my pocket right now that says I'm right and if anyone does prove me wrong, then I'll worry about how I'm gonna get this $100 to them.

All this being said, are you insinuating in any way shape or form that the solution is sort of like a 2d tesseract?

Tick Tock y'all

[preoccupied]

JUBAT,
I'm in no position evidently to prove that I'm right but I like my concept. Would you give it some analysis? I'm referring to my clacker toy effect being used to help lift a weight up.. The basic measurement is that the weight being lifted into overbalance is based on the full circumference of the turn of the two weights using the clacker toy effect. This clacker toy effect should complete the turn, it would start off fine and then try to stop but won't stop because of extra force from the clacker toy effect thereby giving the full 90 degree turn of the levers which would be overbalanced. Some features that make this work better is better clacker toy efficiency and space to shift weight by putting the weights that use the clacker toy effect far off onto the rim on a larger wheel. If you overbalance weights in the center and make the weights that use the clacker toy effect smaller compared to their rotational circumference you have speed at the rim. This is actually infinite logically. You can have the weights that use the clacker toy effect infinitely far away causing them if they were infinitely far away to spin infinitely fast the clacker toy effect would be unbearably powerful maybe or at its maximum. How can I believe this would work? Am I some kind of fool? How dare I think that the force of a potential overbalance could re exhibit its own force back into lifting itself? I am not after your 100 dollars man but because of my idea you might feel like you want to give it to me. Because this is totally a cool concept. I have no skill level to protect my idea or benefit from it. I can't professional draw or build it right now and I've already shared it online. There is a solution JUBAT. I think it's my idea right here.

[JUBAT]

Virtual solves deserve virtual money and physical solves deserve physical money.

That's my rules so I can draw you up an mspaint 100 dollar bill but that's as good as it gets.

[WaltzCee]

.
.

Virtual solves deserve virtual money and physical solves deserve physical money.

lol, I'm going to pay my taxes with virtual money from now on.

[JUBAT]

They play by a different set of rules so be forewarned...uncle sam might not take kindly to your attempts to pay virtually. :)

[WaltzCee]

.
.

All this being said, are you insinuating in any way shape or form that the solution is sort of like a 2d tesseract?

now that's a wild idea, Jubat. I must say that's beyond any crazy I've ever thought.

Do you have any ideas along those lines?

[Sam Peppiatt]

My Brother has given me a wonderful Idea!
Like so: Connect the two rollers together with a single bar all the way across. Mechanically at least, this greatly simplifies every thing. Could this be the so called, "Connectedness Principle"?

Anyway, now one bell-crank can move the rollers when they are horizontal and, another bell-crank can move them when they are vertical. Consequently, the torque should be nearly continuous-----------------Sam

[JUBAT]

.
.

All this being said, are you insinuating in any way shape or form that the solution is sort of like a 2d tesseract?

now that's a wild idea, Jubat. I must say that's beyond any crazy I've ever thought.

Do you have any ideas along those lines?

At the moment, none that could make self-movement a reality, however I'm glad to see that Sam was inspired to a new idea with his current build.

BTW: Where did I read that the weights appeared as children jumping over a fence? That is kind of what I used with my last diagram where I envisioned a weight being the head and another weight being the feet. As a child jumps over a fence, when they land...their head and their feet come closer together as their knees flex. I don't see the point of designing linkage to emulate the knees bending and instead focusing on the relation of the weights to each other. Elsewhere I read that the weight going over the top could not be undivided. Years of reading and research without knowing where some of this stuff comes from...I don't even know if it's correct. I just don't feel like building another dead duck.

Fletch oh Fletch where art thou?

[Sam Peppiatt]

Getting close to trying the new wheel.
To review; a long piece of strap iron connects the two rollers together. This greatly simplifies the guiding of them, (thanks to my Brother). Not only that, a single bell-crank can move both rollers. I.E., one B-C moves / rolls them to the right, when they are horizontal,(for CW rotation). And, a 2nd B-C rolls them again to the right, (for CWR), when they are vertical.

This provides constant torque to the wheel. To repeat, the bell-cranks drive the rollers and the rollers drive the wheel. I don't expect that it will work but, who knows maybe it will surprise me------------------Sam

[JUBAT]

May I ask then Sam, if the bell crank pushes the weight set to the side, what is pushing the bell crank?

Ive thought of this crossbar thing before, but if one set drops to push one set over, then the both end up at the bottom.

Still hopeful in every way for you.

[Sam Peppiatt]

JUBAT,
The long leg of the bell-crank has a small weight either 1/2 pound or 1 pound. It has a mechanical advantage on average, of about 6 to 1. The roller is moved, when all or most of it's weight,(16 pounds) is on the drum, for about 90 degrees of rotation. At this point it's fairly easy to roll it. During the next 90 degrees, all of the weight of the roller is on the short leg of the B-C, which resets the bell-crank weight. All of that is well and good.

Then the cycle repeats. For two drums you get 4 cycles per revolution. The problem has ben; the small weight out on the far end of the bell-crank can spoil every thing. Although they are much smaller, they can still cause bottom heaviness. So, not sure what will happen----------------Sam

ETA
The best part about it is, the heavy roller, never has to reset, which is what drives the wheel.
The rollers never go to the bottom, they are always balanced radially.

[JUBAT]

I get it and like where you're going with it! All the best to you Sam!

[Sam Peppiatt]

Are you sure, JUBAT?
Let me add this, when the drums / rollers are horizontal, one at 9:00 the other at 3:00, and with just one bell-crank. The long arm of the B-C is parallel with the strap iron that connects the two rollers and is below it. With it's weight pulling down. The short arm of the B-C is slotted and fits into a pin on the strap iron.

So, when the long end of the crank pulls down, the short end moves / rolls the rollers to the right. Hope this helps, and thanks------Sam