Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[Roxaway59]

Hi Fletcher I haven't heard of Braess's paradox and it looks interesting. It definitely needs to be looked at as a possible way of having a variable spring on a gravity wheel. The amount of times I have said to myself if only I could make that spring stronger. I don't know if it can be done but I will certainly have a think. I will have a look at your sims later too.
Graham

[Roxaway59]

One thing I forgot to say is that it reminds me of what happens when capacitors are put in series. If two identical ones are put in series the total capacitance is half of one of the capacitors.
Graham

[Roxaway59]

Another issue related to the experiment just shown.

This is a bit more difficult and I find myself thinking about it quite a lot because I know deep down that it is related to what Bessler did. Or should I say I feel I know, because it is more of a feeling.

It’s this business about things being closely connected and I’m tempted to say connectedness principle.

When you look at the two sides of the overbalanced weight shifting experiment what difference do you notice about them? In reality there is very little difference. The same is true for the thought experiment I just gave yet there is a big difference in both cases.

It’s like a tipping point. The very fine line between contact and no contact. Like the question; if you can always halve the distance between a falling object and the ground how does it ever reach the ground? At what distance are the forces that resist the object in operation and why can’t we keep on dividing the distance of those as well?

I spent a great deal of time in the past trying to get wheels to move without moving the weights. Don’t laugh. The thinking came from the reality that if I have a weight at 6 o’clock and an equal one at 12 o’clock and I let that one roll anticlockwise just a fraction, I instantly create a pendulum at 3 o’clock that then moves the wheel half a turn. Other ideas were based on not moving the weights at all but either hanging them or resting them on something.

When two weights are on either side of a pivot it matters what distance they are from the pivot and what shape they are. If a weight of a particular shape is close to the pivot then part of it is close to going over the pivot line. Once over, it is helping the other weight to overbalance itself.

So what we are dealing with is this idea of very small things ending up having large effects.

Imagine this scenario. Two weights are on the verge of tipping over because one of them is very close to the tipping point. A butterfly just happens to fly past and touches the weight with its wing. The weight topples over on to another mechanism that is the same but larger. This larger one topples onto another larger one and so on like a domino effect. Eventually the last mechanism topples and causes immense devastation. The whole chain of events happened because all the weights were close to the pivot and all it took was a very weak force to make things happen. If the weights had been away from the pivots a herd of elephants could have gone past and things would have been alright.

So I have to ask the question; is it possible to use a very small force to create a domino effect / amplifying force to make larger weights move and rotate a wheel? I think it’s a good question.

Think of it this way; when Besslers wheel was rotated with little force from someone it quickly gained force to the point where it could lift the same person off the floor.

Lets face it, there is some kind of amplification taking place there and it doesn’t need a herd of elephants to start it.
Graham

[Fletcher]

Elephants are hard to find and expensive to feed - horses are easier all round to work with ..

[Roxaway59]

Those sims are interesting I will have to start using WM2D more. Could you try just taking a weight and suspending it from a rope then connecting another rope directly downwards. My WM2D wont do that without complaining and I'm guessing that you have to add something to the ropes to make it work.
Graham

[Fletcher]

Could you try just taking a weight and suspending it from a rope then connecting another rope directly downwards.

My WM2D wont do that without complaining and I'm guessing that you have to add something to the ropes to make it work.

Rotate 90 degrees to the right I--------------------------------O------ seems easy enough ..

Build your model the usual way with the rope connecting objects etc - select the rope and go to > Properties .. note there is an elasticity field set to 0.00 - this does not function usually in mine so don't bother changing it to closer to 1.00 - so for workaround attach a small spring somewhere in the rope length to act as the elastic forces over a distance .. because ropes are usually twisted or woven braids and are more flexible than say iron rods - that's why suspension bridges and ships hawsers are made of steel ropes rather than steel rods, or chain links - more give when a sudden load is applied and don't instantly snap .. rods > links > braid

Good luck ..

ETA : if it is a straight pull replace the rope with a spring element and make it stiff by increasing its K value by orders of magnitude, say 50,000K.

[Roxaway59]

Thanks Fletcher I will give that a try tomorrow.
Graham

[Roxaway59]

Fletcher I wanted to ask you a question about the prime mover because I ended up having an idea last night on something that may give my wheel a chance of working. Obviously I wont know one way or the other until I have simulated it and then built a mechanism if the simulations go well. The mechanism would consist of three weights and they all would work together to do a specific function but what would you call the prime mover? One of the weights or the mechanism as a whole? Its really only these mechanisms that would be making the wheel work though. I think if I'm understanding the term correctly it would have to be one of the weights.
Graham

[Fletcher]

Hi Graham .. its always a hard one to decide - I'd say it's the entire "special mech" that is the Prime Mover apparatus - you bring these specific items together in a certain repeatable way and a special outcome is produced - in your case it appears that you are chasing a mech that is a workaround to Archimedes Law of Levers of Classical Mechanics and Physics repute .. IOW's you break the constraints of F1 x D2 = D2 x F1 which are ratios of forces to displacements ..

I'd say reduce your mechanical solution down to the bare minimum and it still works - and that would be as far as you can reduce down - that would be the Prime Mover, imo ..

It might be that a combination of mechs and applications is required to sustain imbalance and be self-moving and not just one-special lever arrangement that returns more GPE than expended and can reset itself etc - I often put forward the proposition that this then would be the bare minimum and the whole shebang can be mounted to any ordinary temporary OOB wheel format (a load) and the combination a runner ..

It's for each of us to decide ateotd I guess, should we get into that territory .. Best of luck !

ETA .. if you get there you have earned the right to call it whatever you want ;7)

[Roxaway59]

I am continuing to simulate mechanisms that I believe can help move me towards my goal of finding a suitable Prime Mover to overbalance my wheel. The simulations already carried out have changed my focus onto other areas and some of these are adaptations of things I have already covered. Some of the things I have seen are encouraging and I remain optimistic about the approach I am taking. I do need to do more work before I present anything for others to look at and help me with and give opinions about and I hope to do this as soon as I have some positive simulations in WM2D that confirm those of Aldgodoo.

I will post from time to time on reverse engineering Besslers wheel and Prime Mover.

With that being said I will get on my soap box for a couple of minutes.

I know that it's possible to get tired of going over the same things that have been said many times but in this case it's unavoidable so here goes.

First of all I have to say that I am taking the view that Bessler never lied at any point. If it turns out that I am wrong in the things that I say and someone comes up with a working wheel that is at odds with what I am saying I won't care. I will just simply be pleased that the answer is found.

We can't go back in time and uncover Besslers wheel to see what is inside it but we can reverse engineer it knowing how it behaved as long as we stick to the known facts.

Firstly the wheel didn't get it's energy from the weights whizzing around the wheel picking up some form of mysterious energy. The energy came from gravity. This is based on the reasonable assumption that Besslers first wheels operated from the same principle that his later ones did albeit with some modifications.

His first wheels turned as soon as they were released meaning that the internal structure took up an overbalanced shape at all times. I don't know about you but it's difficult for me to think about whizzing weights in play. The weights were already in the place they needed to be in. This by the way is the kind of thing that I am proposing with my wheel since it is self starting and would work like a water wheel for gravity.

So part of the solution to this problem is actually quite simple. Gravity is not a conservative force.

This reminds me of something that happened to me when I was once employed to work on welding equipment. I visited a factory to find out what the problem was with a MIG welder. The resident electrician there told me that there was a problem with the welding set that was difficult to find and that another engineer had failed to find it. I looked up at the circuit breaker on the wall and asked if that had been looked at. The electrician told me that it had been changed and that it was a new one so the problem wasn’t that. I proceeded to check every damn thing on that welding set and I practically took it apart but I couldn’t find the fault. The next day my boss came up to me and said that he had looked at the same welding set and that he had found the fault. I said blimey what was it? He said the circuit breaker.

I learned a very important lesson that day and its one that every scientist knows as well. Don’t assume anything absolutely. Always bear in mind that assumptions may be useful at times but you can’t take them as fact. There is no real proof that gravity is a conservative force.

Some people on the forum have already speculated that gravity is not a conservative force and some have suggested that using gravity as a power source will possibly have very negative effects. I agree with the first one but I would be surprised if the second one was really the case. Show me some force that man uses that nature hasn’t been using since time began. There is no reason that I can see why using gravity in this way has to be bad. It may even be linked to anti gravity and we may find that gravity is not as strong over a working gravity wheel. We do of course get energy indirectly from gravity. Geothermal energy is one of the best of these and is a constant source of reliable energy.

The prime mover is a weight shifting mechanism that enables a larger weight to be lifted by a smaller weight. For anyone who's groaning right now saying blimey he's off again with his weight shifting malarkey I'm sorry but I can't change that unless something more logical comes along. The weight shifting mechanism I am thinking of at the moment works in theory but I need to do more simulations and then find out what happens when it is on a wheel. All the best.
Graham

[daxwc]

R59: So part of the solution to this problem is actually quite simple. Gravity is not a conservative force.

I don’t know if energy is a conservative force or not, but I do know at the very least we do not understand where it is stored.

For example: We want to push a car from point A to point B. We all know it is hard to get the car moving but once it is moving it is easier to keep it moving. But if we stop several times and repeatedly have to overcome inertia each time we expend more energy. So we push the car to B; both scenarios used different amounts of energy with the same end result. Where is the difference of energy stored?

[SHADOW]

Daxwc,
Je pense que cette énergie est stockée dans la pression de contact entre les éléments.

I think this energy is stored in the contact pressure between the elements.

[eccentrically1]

R59: So part of the solution to this problem is actually quite simple. Gravity is not a conservative force.

I don’t know if energy is a conservative force or not, but I do know at the very least we do not understand where it is stored.

For example: We want to push a car from point A to point B. We all know it is hard to get the car moving but once it is moving it is easier to keep it moving. But if we stop several times and repeatedly have to overcome inertia each time we expend more energy. So we push the car to B; both scenarios used different amounts of energy with the same end result. Where is the difference of energy stored?

Energy is not a conservative force.

It isn't stored in either of those scenarios, it's lost to the difference in efficiency between stopping and not stopping .

[daxwc]

Ok, lost to where Ecc1? Where did it go?

We cant destroy it. So it is stored somewhere.

ChatGPT:According to the principle of conservation of energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be transferred or converted from one form to another. This fundamental concept comes from the laws of physics, particularly the first law of thermodynamics. In different processes or interactions, the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant. While energy may change from one form to another, the total energy within the system remains conserved.

[Robinhood46]

Heat. It all got transferred into heat. You heated the planet up, not enough to be held responsible for global warming, but you did heat it up a bit.
You sweated a lot more, when you stopped and started, than when you pushed it in one go, because of the increase in effort needed to keep starting it. You needed more energy to push it and you created more heat due to friction.