We been missing this all these years.

[Calloway]

I checked this year's ago. Cheap ass parts fooled me. Normal store bought one way bearings will slip under load. The pendulum cannot sling out on the back side of rotation only on the front. Buy good stuff.
Cheers

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Calloway,
Not sure what what you mean. A pendulum works really good for driving a wheel, maybe one of the best ways. However, I was able to prove,(with special gearing), that resetting it in say 90 degrees of rotation of the wheel, has to happen exactly twice as fast as the wheel is turning. I.E., (that is to say), the acceleration of it has to be twice, that due to the acceleration of gravity.

Which means, given a weight of two pounds going down, takes a force of four pounds to lift it back up. It's just impossible, (FWEIW)-----------Sam

[Calloway]

Sam, To start with I stand corrected. The one way lock bearings are working as they should I'm going to try and explain. The example is we have a wheel with 2 pendulums hanging down at 180 degrees apart. On the pendulums is mounted one way bearings that mount on the shafts of the wheel. These are needle type one way bearings. When the wheel turns right or CW, the right pendulum swings out to the right and is locked. This pulls the wheel down. The pendulum on the left should be locked in to the right also helping the wheel stay unbalanced. The lock doesn't work on the left side, they swing out. This balances the wheel causing it to slow and stop. PROBLEM: These needle one way lock bearings have many places on the shaft that they can release or lock. As the wheel turns the shaft of the pendulum is turning inside of the bearing releasing the lock in the left pendulum. The pendulum on the up or left side just swings out like there was no lock at all. Damdest thing I've ever seen.
The left pendulum has to lock and stay somewhat to the right. Then the wheel turns. I will have to replace the one way locks with what's shown in the picture. Gear type setup with limited release times.

Cheers

[Sam Peppiatt]

Calloway,
For a good lock on the bearings I had to use a hardened and ground, precision shaft. They should lock going up or down equally as well. Going up shouldn't make any difference.
I know what you mean. As the wheel rotates the shaft kind of rotates under the bearing or like you say inside of the bearing and they would release too soon. A lot of the time I could only get about 90 degrees of lock.
I'm thinking a little torsion spring might prevent that. To keep a small load on it, if you will, to prevent it from releasing.

Ratchets will add a lot of friction---------Sam

[agor95]

Hello Calloway

It would be informative; If a flywheel like above was brought up to operation speed by a simple manual method.

That being a device with the flywheel and weighted pendulum only.

So the pendulum is lifted up manually to allow it too lock as it drops.
The repeat this action until the flywheel reaches it's maximum rotation speed.

Then test various lengths of pendulum to find the rotation speeds so they can be recorded and graphed.

I am using the down the axle perspective. So axle, flywheel then pendulum order.
With the pendulum locking and dropping on the right.

Thus causing a clock wise rotation.

Regards

[Calloway]

Hello agor95, Hope you are doing well. The problem is the pendulums don't stay locked on the left hand or up side negating any gains from the right side going down. They sling out overcoming the one way locks. Another dead end it seems.

Cheers

[agor95]

Hello Calloway

I am doing well however the math's is hard to unpack along with the modern JavaScript syntax.

I have some engineered clutch bearings and they are kept well below there torque limit.
When getting them you can get smooth or ones with groves on the outer rim and inner axle.
Also there is a plastic that melts at boiling water temperature. It is quit solid after cooling.

So this locks the bearing in place to allow the ratchet function to work successfully.

Regards

[Sam Peppiatt]

The thing that we have been missing is; 'rotating weights' they can't be used to drive a gravity wheel. The reason is, If a weight rotates with the wheel it falls down. If it does fall down, it has to be lifted back up. Which means, in a sense, the critics are right; weights can never be lifted back up.

The only way then is to use weights that don't rotate, that never fall down----------------Sam

[agor95]

Hello Sam

I can agree with your logic. So we need to think of Bessler's principle as one that does not operate in a wheel.
The device rotates around an axle and is covered to give the appearance of a cylinder. Therefore it looks like a wheel. But is it a wheel?

Next acceleration due to gravity is an acceleration we search to harvest to transmute into acceleration of rotation of the device; Like turning a lead weight into gold.

The principle to consider is an object can be rotated along one axle with less work than another; in most cases.
Translation being the one that results in the most work.

Therefore the process is to convert translation of an object into a rotation that places the internal mass object in a more out of balanced on the right. Then rotate the mass object into a less out of balance place on the left.

The lifting is a process of one lifting the other.

P.S.

A stationary object is in translation and results in work being done, That is called weight.
A falling object is not translating therefore it is weightless.

However if you imped it's fall you can rotate it as above.

Where people get stuck is using the K.E. to drive the mass upwards. Don't bother there is no need.

Regards

[Robinhood46]

The thing that we have been missing is; 'rotating weights' they can't be used to drive a gravity wheel. The reason is, If a weight rotates with the wheel it falls down. If it does fall down, it has to be lifted back up. Which means, in a sense, the critics are right; weights can never be lifted back up.

The only way then is to use weights that don't rotate, that never fall down----------------Sam

Sam,
This is the same logic as i used when i shared my thoughts of gravity wheels with a fundamental difference.
Trying to get a wheel to work that has the weights going around with the wheel, is, without any doubt, going to end in failure. Just as you say.
It is impossible to find perpetual motion with weights going around with the wheel, does not mean that perpetual motion is impossible, just that it can't happen with weights going around with the wheel.

We need to look at trying to find the solution in the group of wheels that Perpetual motion isn't impossible, not in the group of wheels that perpetual motion is impossible.
This is why i consider the two groups to have a difference that is fundamental.

Where we disagree, is with this bit "The only way then is to use weights that don't rotate, that never fall down".
I am not too sure that this is necessary, because i think that weights rotating, but not rotating with the wheel, is still possible.

It would be nice, if one day we could know whether we are talking bollocks, or that weights going around with the wheel, really is a total waste of time and effort, because it is, always has been and always will be, impossible to create perpetual motion.
I am not talking about opinions that know it's nonsense.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Robinhood, Yes. I agree.
I don't have it quit right. The weights can't rotate with the wheel. That part is right. The weights have to translate. I.E., they go around and around in a circle but don't rotate. Which keeps the center of gravity,(of the weight), always to the down side of the wheel.

Or, as he put it, always keep the weights away from the center of gravity.

The preverbal Roberval balance. The key to it then, is to find a way to unbalance it. If I'm on the right track that is. Anyway, as you say the weights can't rotate with the wheel. That has to be a fundamental difference--------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

agor, I think most of what you say is right, the right idea anyway-Sam

ETA You see the difference? If a weight rotates with the wheel and passes 6:00, the center of mass, shifts to the other side of the wheel. That's the big problem with rotating weights. The center of mass of the wheel always has to stay to the down side of it.

I'm finding it difficult to describe accurately. Maybe you can do better.

[Fletcher]

Hi Robinhood, Yes. I agree.

I don't have it quite right. The weights can't rotate with the wheel. That part is right. The weights have to translate. I.E., they go around and around in a circle but don't rotate. Which keeps the center of gravity, (of the weight), always to the down side of the wheel.

Or, as he put it, always keep the weights away from the center of gravity.

The preverbal Roberval balance. The key to it then, is to find a way to unbalance it. If I'm on the right track that is. Anyway, as you say the weights can't rotate with the wheel. That has to be a fundamental difference--------------Sam

Hey Sam, some further thoughts on what you said .. Ramelli and Roberval Balances do show a physical displacement of weights translating as you describe, and keeping the CoM to one side of the center axle - but they don't have any torque because any PE lost and gained by those weights is equal in height ( for the same time interval ) - if we unbalance them then there can be a NET reduction of GPE ( and torque ), which must be recovered at some stage to restore GPE so it can go again and self-move itself as per B's. runners - the restoration of GPE is the hard part for most of us ..

fwiw .. we know there was a repeating temporary net imbalancing going on inside B's. runners because he tells us so in the quote you mention, and also as he waves it in our face in MT15 ..

From John Collins digital MT ..

No. 15 This ratchet-wheel derives from the previous model, except that the tensions are somewhat longer and have an additional special weight at the external ends. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the superior weight.

From John Collins hardcopy MT ..

No. 15 This ratchet-wheel derives from the previous model, except that the tensioners are somewhat longer and have an additional special weight at the outer ends. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the overbalance.

MT15 illustration has 3 types on chronic overbalancing mechanics on show at once, just to ram it home, in case we missed it - but they all need a method to restore their GPE ( i.e. be lifted again ) to regenerate the torque for continued self-turning as per his runners - he says in MT15 that the overbalance is on show but the prime mover is missing and can't be deduced from the illustration - it, imo, is the prime mover that restored the GPE if he is to be taken literally, and I have no doubt it was meant to be taken very literally ..

...................

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher / @,
Always keep in mind I'm probably wrong most of the time, in my attempts to resolve the issue. My feeling is; the wheels had continuous, constant torque. If I'm right about that; then, any periodic restoring or resetting of GPE is futile. Which also means the restoration of GPE has to be continuous, not intermittent.

One aspect of that is; the center of gravity is always to the down side of the wheel, to produce constant torque. Which seams to be what Bessler is suggesting. The question is how to achieve that? There aren't very many ways that it can be done. A Roberval type or style of balance gives a sense of it but, if there is a way to adapt it, I don't know how.

Another way is with the so called Ring & Rollers, (that no one likes), however they do give constant torque, to the wheel. If, if a way could be found to displace them,(continuously).

Maybe Helmholtz had the right idea. Invent a BS law and forget the whole thing---Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher,
Right. MT-15 and the prim mover. For him to know and us to find out. I guess it has to mean two movers or, two sets of weights---------------Sam