Gravitational shortcut

[Sam Peppiatt]

FWEIW,
I think this has to be an important clue. It could be a description of the Ring & Rollers. They do gravitate / fall / roll into the center as the wheel turns. Then they alternate, (climb back up), first one goes up and the other down, then the 2nd one goes up and the first one down. And, a heavy roller could be considered excess weight. But, that's just me.

Maybe what Bessler means is; it can't be just a radius by it's self. It has to be a radius, along with some thing else. I.E., some thing else with the change in radius---------------Sam

ETA,
Maybe he is referring to translating weights. They go around in a circle but don't rotate. Could that be it? I wonder.

[johannesbender]

How do you square the circle on these different statements??

At present, as far as
I'm concerned, anyone who wants can go on about the wonderful
doings of these weights, alternately gravitating to the centre and
climbing back up again, for I can't put the matter more clearly.

Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can
arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the
centre than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few
years ago I learned all about this the hard way. And then the
truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn
through bitter experience. There's a lot more to matters of
mechanics than I've revealed to date

It's no matter - I don't wish to go
into the details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused
to rise.

And as for the interior cog mechanism - that will hinder movement
rather than promote it.

All the wise
ones were looking for the same principle ( of "excess weight") that
I have described, and they sought it in things that were already
familiar to them.

What does unfamiliar excess weight / overbalance look like?

Add to consideration , he said one side is empty & light , other full and & heavy , i know this is something people obviously have different opinions on , he also apparently said by adding more the effect could be increased , lets look at the following examples .

Which of these would increase the effect by adding more of the same to it ? A+B ? C+D ? E+F ?

I would say where ever there is more weights on one side would increase the effect by adding more of the same to it and not the one's which only have more torque to one side .

My thinking is there was a net torque and a net amount of weights overweight + overbalance , how he did it is anyone's guess .

Edit : Also add to the examples one that has zero counter torque , which would also increase the effect when more of the same was added on onr axle for example.

So the second optiom that could likely increase the effect is zero counter torque.

[johannesbender]

If the first example did not make sense , here is the same thing in a different format , each example is a scale with buckets on each end and buckets in between the ends , each mass in a bucket is equal to 1KG.

To the left is a singular situation of torque and mass , and to the right is the same thing tripled.
Now if you look at which would increase the effect.

A) No matter how much you add of the same situation on the left , all you would do is increase the total weight , ex. 1kg at 0.5m vs 1kg at 1m to 3kg at 0.5m vs 3kg at 1m , the same thing there is no extra by adding more.

B) If you add the same situation to itself , the effect would increase , ex. 1kg vs 2kg to 3kg vs 6kg etc. , there is extra by adding more first there was 1kg extra then after there was 3kg extra.

C) (The same as C but different initial torque) the effect would increase , ex. 1kg at 0.5m vs 2kg at 1m ,to 3kg at 0.5m vs 6kg at 1m etc. first there was 1kg at 1m extra , then after there were 3kg at 1m extra.

D) If you add the same situation to itself , the effect would increase , ex. 0 vs 1 to 0 vs 3 etc. (very much the same effect as zero counter torque) , first there was 1kg extra then after there was 3kg extra.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Again,
Do you see what I mean? The weights have to move from side to side, out on the down side and back in on the up side. But NOT, not on a radius. That's the difference, that's what has to happen for it to work------Sam

[Roxaway59]

This is obviously a very important discussion that is taking place on this thread and it is highlighting crucial points that need to be addressed.

I want to emphasise something once again and see if it resonates with anyone.

First I want you to look at my wheel once again but look at it as a theoretical concept and consider some things.

[Roxaway59]

This is a 4m wheel and I have attached 4 sets of weights along a single crossbar. If you look closely at the axle there is a 5kg weight that is being lifted. If this had 3 more crossbars it would of course be a lot more powerful.

I want you to observe a few points about the concept.

A) The wheel is powerful.
B) The weights do not change their radius
C) A single crossbar can turn the wheel half way before losing speed
D) The path of the pendulum that a single crossbar creates is almost a perfect D shape.
E) Besslers apparent contradiction is not a contradiction when you look at this wheel design
F) The Wheels power can be controlled by adding more weights along the crossbar but there are diminishing returns as the weights approach the axle.
G) The weights are always falling under gravity
H) It is possible for this wheel concept to rotate quickly

I believe these points address some of the things brought up on the thread -

johannesbender
Both examples fail usually for one reason , the typical energy required to lift/shift the weights in to the lifted positions is more than what can be done with what is available , and these designs also typically does not revolve much when the weights cannot move to their required positions in time , because if the weights are not moved in to the inner positions they create counter force against the other outer weights ,and if they aren't moved in to the outer positions they cant provide a larger force against the inner weights.

My thought process was still that gravitating (falling) in to position was the only free way (via gravity) to move a mass in and out to a smaller and larger radius because anything that attempts to lift a mass against gravity (while lifting can be done) would result in a tradeoff with an energy loss , and that it is an impossibility to lift as high or higher as the dropping mass proven through the laws and nature and which is displayed by many many failed designs .

We can link many clues here to MT , the TP etc for ex. moving in and out like the hammer men and while gravitating left and right like the JL while balancing like a spinning top while moving up like the SB etc, however the point is rather to learn another valuable lesson , lifting/shifting in and out is not the only problem such design types have to overcome , they also need uncontested torque during rotation and CF at any fast speed such as 50 rpm would never work etc ....

The lesson i perhaps take away for now , stop attempting radius changes .

Add to consideration , he said one side is empty & light , other full and & heavy , i know this is something people obviously have different opinions on , he also apparently said by adding more the effect could be increased

daxwc
What does unfamiliar excess weight / overbalance look like?

My point was the contradiction. One quote has the weight gravitating to center the other seems to suggest weights need to stay at the same radious.

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that changing the weights radius was the wrong approach. No it hasn’t stopped me visiting this idea from time to time but that is mainly because I never take anything off the table.

When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable, must be the truth.

To some it is improbable that I can get the weights where they need to be. I would suggest that if you are thinking improbable rather than impossible then this wheel concept is as I have been saying from the beginning the correct one but it needs the illusive prime mover.

I would just like to add this thought. Look at the example below.

[Roxaway59]

This idea fulfils what is needed for the left hand side of my wheel.

It naturally holds the weight higher up without the need for a lever. The framework that holds it is balanced. It uses the same principle as the hanging weight which exerts its weight further up but this time in reverse.

This doesn’t solve my problem yet of course but it just proves that there is other ways of doing things and maybe the answer is on the toy page as Bessler suggested.

Lastly I just want to say that its easy for us to lose are way a little as we try to do this. I feel like an idiot at the best of times and it doesn’t help that the scientific community thinks we are a bunch of losers. I think if we work collectively the answers will come.
Graham

[Sam Peppiatt]

Follow on, I'll try again.
The weights that turn the wheel have to shift out on the down side and back in on the up side. But, not on a radius, just as Bessler said. Which I agree with. I've made my 5,000 mistakes trying to do that. If that's true and, I think it is, then, the weights have to be translating. No radial motion, no radial rotation.
Translating motion means, moving in a circler path parallel to the ground. To do that, requires a second set of weights to keep the rods that the weights slide on translating. These weights are the ones that gravitate / fall into the center and then climb back up.

The rods remain horizontal through out there movement. The ring & rollers are one way to do that, or I should say the cross-bar--------------Sam

[Fletcher]

My point was the contradiction. One quote has the weight gravitating to center, the other seems to suggest weights need to stay at the same radius.

I don't see any contradiction - regarding traditional imbalance conditions, whether a weight changes radius ( the moving in and out method ) or stays at the same radius and is advanced or retarded ( the moving forward and backward method ) both methods are described in the common garden "Width for Height ( W4H )" manipulation method for creating imbalance .. both often tried methods, besides failing, have exactly the same few problems with them - time for weights to transition in and out or forward and backwards - Cf's at higher rpms - and mostly, there is always the requirement for weights to be "raised up/lifted" just as B. says is necessary in his method also - we know that even with artificially low friction environments ( like sims can do ) we do not have enough torque from either of the 2 W4H common displacement methods to fully restore PE (GPE), and the wheel accelerate and gain momentum i.e. be an everlasting self-moving wheel ..

[johannesbender]

Follow on, I'll try again.
The weights that turn the wheel have to shift out on the down side and back in on the up side. But, not on a radius, just as Bessler said. Which I agree with. I've made my 5,000 mistakes trying to do that. If that's true and, I think it is, then, the weights have to be translating. No radial motion, no radial rotation.
Translating motion means, moving in a circler path parallel to the ground. To do that, requires a second set of weights to keep the rods that the weights slide on translating. These weights are the ones that gravitate / fall into the center and then climb back up.

The rods remain horizontal through out there movement. The ring & rollers are one way to do that, or I should say the cross-bar--------------Sam

Honestly , i cannot envision what you mean Sam.

[Tarsier79]

JB, if any of your images could be achieved, all of them would be scalable or multiply-able.

Hi Sam, I don't think the ring and rollers achieve what you think they do... You have to ask yourself: What is their advantage, and how do I test that advantage?

[johannesbender]

This idea fulfils what is needed for the left hand side of my wheel.

It naturally holds the weight higher up without the need for a lever. The framework that holds it is balanced. It uses the same principle as the hanging weight which exerts its weight further up but this time in reverse.

This doesn’t solve my problem yet of course but it just proves that there is other ways of doing things and maybe the answer is on the toy page as Bessler suggested.

Lastly I just want to say that its easy for us to lose are way a little as we try to do this. I feel like an idiot at the best of times and it doesn’t help that the scientific community thinks we are a bunch of losers. I think if we work collectively the answers will come.
Graham

We are familiar with the concept of the Roberval Balance and the Ramelli Wheel ,when the weight always loses and gains the same GPE irrespective of its position , there are a bunch of ways of doing it , even 2 pulleys with slotted pans can do it , for example any weight on any of the green parts will lose and gain the same GPE no matter where the weight is on the green parts...

I have gone so far that i even imagined them in city designs :) https://fotoeins.com/2016/07/25/karlsru ... t-fancity/

[johannesbender]

JB, if any of your images could be achieved, all of them would be scalable or multiply-able.

Hi Sam, I don't think the ring and rollers achieve what you think they do... You have to ask yourself: What is their advantage, and how do I test that advantage?

Except A imo , A would only increase the total mass of each side but they would remain the same in weights , 1:1 2:2 3:3 4:4 weights at the same radii ,each time you add more the total torque increases the same for each side so there is no net change in effect.

For B there is an increase in weights for example would have 1 on each side in balance and 1 extra ,then 3 on each side in balance and 3 extra , whatever is in balance is irrelevant when adding more.

C is up for discussion though so my point is more directed at A and B and D.

For D there is an obvious increase.

Karl and Bessler remarked the effect would increase if more were placed on the same axle , a situation of just torque like example A would not make more torque just more weight.

(Perhaps i write a little confusing , but I'm sure you would see what i mean).

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Tarsier,
I'm not sure what you mean. I've already explained it in great detail, to no avail. Nothing I say means any thing, to any one. Perhaps I should just leave it at that--------------------Sam

[Tarsier79]

Hi Sam

I mean you have to ask that to yourself... What is your perceived advantage, how do you test it.

I don't want to discourage you from testing it, or understanding why it does or doesn't work. I have explored this basic principle in the past. My firm belief is that its operation is explainable in the same method any other normal OB wheel doesn't work.... I thought you had in testing it discovered and expressed the issues with it. Anyway, I don't want to clog up JBs thread with this. Anyway, even if you think you are talking to a brick wall, we do appreciate your contributions. Keep up the good fight.