Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[Robinhood46]

The scientists are mistaken, right? So, you have to quit thinking like one of them-----------------Sam

LOL
Sam, i think the problem is, and i have already shared my view, that we all have different periods where we are willing to question different aspects of the physics.
We know they aren't all wrong, that's just not possible. One bit is wrong, and even the bit that is wrong, probably isn't entirely wrong, it's just a bit of it that's wrong.
Some of us are willing to question more bits than others. Fletcher has already complained about his feet being stuck in the concrete boots of knowledge, and how hard it is to get his feet out (paraphrasing as usual).
We don't want him to stop thinking like a scientist, just start thinking like an eccentric one.

[johannesbender]

And I like others believe the Toys Page is the key to the castle - the mechanical clues/symbology to this 'active' Prime Mover technology that allowed the discounted cost of lifting, imo ..

I believe something similar , except if i were to put it down in words here i would change some a small amount of text : "And I like others believe the Toys Page is the key to the castle - the mechanical clues/symbology to the correct principle , imo .."

[johannesbender]

Fletcher,
you have it all wrong; pertaining to Bessler's wheel that is. I agree with jb, the problem is trying to re-lift the weights. One way to avoid that, is NOT to lift them. And, the only way to do that is not to let them fall in the first place. Lifting problem solved! That's the key to it.

The scientists are mistaken, right? So, you have to quit thinking like one of them-----------------Sam

All i can contribute Sam , is always look at the positives and see how you could use it in different ways.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Robinhood, sure. There isn't any thing wrong with science. It's the way it's being applied to a wheel, that's wrong. The weights don't have to fall. If they don't fall, then they don't have to be re-lifted all the time-----------------Sam

[Roxaway59]

Hi Fletcher I just wanted to ask a question if I may.

This is based on some of the law of the lever work around's that I have been attempting to do just lately.

Referring to my Algodoo picture below. If I create a lever that can accomplish this with the centre of gravity would this be classed as a successful work around for the law of the levers?

Graham

[preoccupied]

Because of Bessler's clues I have looked for a duo weight system from the start. However with my logic I think that Bessler would have saw a single weight system first and saw that it almost worked but the catch gears would have to be even smaller. So what is my logic? I am letting a weight have 90 degree range of motion and I am lifting it all of the way up at the top like a classical perpetual motion machine that tries to lift weights into position there. The logic I have and Bessler might have had is that you lose leverage using a catch or stationary catch outside of the wheel so you want to put the catch in the center of the wheel to shift the weights. In a single lever system with one weight and one lever it just about works but the catch has to be really small to have overbalance. If Bessler followed my logic and tried to improve the design he would have naturally tried 2 weight right angles from each other then he would have noticed eventually that he could pull the right angle inward and then when it changes direction it begins assisting the turn and at the end of the turn there is an extra lever sticking out to the left on the bottom because of the right angles. What this amounts to in my recent drawing is 1 lever distance overbalanced because 3.4 lever distance is driving the mech then and 2 resistance plus 0.4 resistance from use of the catch at the beginning for the picture and at the end of its cycle about 0.4 overbalanced with the extra lever poking to the left at the bottom. If this is a work around for LOL I think Bessler could have naturally found it looking into classical overbalanced wheels with the same logic I am using about the catch position. Because it's beyond my logic why people have for so long tried to use a catch to lift the weight into position outside of the wheel or over the top rather and didn't have insight that the leverage was lost by the position of the catch. Because leverage absolutely is totally lost by the position of the catch, like totally. And this seems like the most fundamental logical step someone can take when using a catch to try to lift a weight over the top. So anybody who notices this must put the catch as close to the axle as possible and Bessler could have noticed this and put the catch close to the axle and realized that he could move the lever in unison with the wheel for 90 degrees and almost get a working wheel if the catch is really super tight against the axle. Then to make it more reasonable for a build he looked into two weights working together then came up with an eventual right angle set up like mine in which weight moves in and then assists and moves out and then there is an extra weight off to the left on the bottom because of the right angle positions. I mean if I were Bessler I think I would have started with 1 lever and then looked at two and found the solution that I have now. Because it's just so simple and basic that you would move the catch really close to the axle and I haven't seen anybody propose such a thing until I see myself doing it now. But even though I might be unique here by saying it it bears simple and rational logic because eventually you will realize that you lose leverage by using a catch that the catch needs to be closer to the axle for efficiency.

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 85#p210285

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher I just wanted to ask a question if I may.

This is based on some of the law of the lever work around's that I have been attempting to do just lately.

Referring to my Algodoo picture below. If I create a lever that can accomplish this with the centre of gravity would this be classed as a successful work around for the law of the levers?

Hi Graham .. no problem at all ..

Well, first what is the Law of Levers ?

It basically says if you have a lever and it is supported on a fulcrum in its exact geographical center ( i.e. assuming even homogeneous mass distribution ) like your figure A then it can be placed in any position and it shall remain there, like your figure B ..

Taking A, if you then at a known horizontal distance from the fulcrum hang or attach a mass then the the force x distance will create a turning moment ( torque ) - if we place an unknown mass on the other side we can adjust its horizontal distance until the lever is "balanced" - and then we can take the known moment and divide by the new distance to calculate the unknown mass .. this is the principle of weighing "balance" scales used in various forms thru the ages ..

What levers do is redirect and multiply forces and the distances forces are applied which is called Mechanical Advantage - Effort and Load - levers are just "simple machines" ..

In your pic I can not see any evidence that B has a raised up CoG / COM .. what I can see is that both A and B have a fulcrum at the geographical center of the lever - as explained earlier if any lever is perfectly balanced around its fulcrum then it has no preference for one position over another - therefore if given a spin it could just as likely end up at B as A ..

So, no, based on it being balanced and changing orientation I would say that is not a workaround to the LOLs ..

However, if it were a perfectly balanced lever and was given a spin and it had a statistically significant preference to end up orientated like figure B then you would have something noteworthy and worth investigation to see if it was truly "balanced" or had a slight CoG / COM bias, imo ..

[SHADOW]

Bonjour Fletcher,
Ne pouvons nous pas remettre en question la loi des leviers sur un système en rotation?

Hi Fletcher,
Can we not question the law of levers on a rotating system?

[thx4]

Bonjour Fletcher,
Ne pouvons nous pas remettre en question la loi des leviers sur un système en rotation?

Salut SHADOW, c'est exactement ce que j'essaye de démontrer dans ma dernière vidéo, c'est désespérant...
L'énergie potentiel est devenue supérieur de plusieurs centimètres sur la périphérie, alors que nous sommes beaucoup plus lourd à déplacer.
Tu as vu les réponses lol, la traduction de l'expression française " le jour où les cons voleront, tu seras chef d'escadrille", n'est pas passée. lol
Je ne traduirai plus mes messages, s'il me vire c'est tant mieux.
Pour conclure, Il faut une différence de poids mais façon "balourd".
A ++

[SHADOW]

Bonjour Thx4,
Je suis tout a fait daccord avec toi , mais cela ne m'empeche pas d'être une esquadrille à moi tout seul :)!
Il faut relativiser cela te donne un avantage dans ta demarche!

[Roxaway59]

thx4 wrote,

Hi SHADOW, that's exactly what I'm trying to demonstrate in my last video, it's desperate... The potential energy has become several centimeters higher on the periphery, while we are much heavier to move. You've seen the answers lol, the translation of the French expression "the day the idiots will fly, you'll be a squadron leader", didn't go through. Laughing out loud I won't translate my messages anymore, if he fires me it's good. To conclude, there must be a difference in weight but in a "clumsy" way. A++

Hi thx4 I dont know what to make of your experiment yet but I am working on my own experiments that may be in some way related.

Graham

[Sam Peppiatt]

thx4, that's good stuff! The leader of the squadron; might be a good job for me------------------Sam

[Tarsier79]

If I create a lever that can accomplish this with the centre of gravity would this be classed as a successful work around for the law of the levers?

IMO, If your energy input (preload plus PE) is smaller than your output (PE), then yes. If you can achieve this in real world, you have a/the key.

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher,

Can we not question the law of levers on a rotating system?

Mornin Shadow .. of course we can - we are trying to find a workaround to "levers" in some form, to get the lifting/reset that is required, and still allow the carrier wheel to accelerate and gain momentum/RKE at the same time, as well as complete the required lift ..

A couple of points to consider imo ..

A balanced ( torque balanced ) lever of the rectangle kind as Graham showed above can be substituted for a circular disk ( a wheel ) - both have a Center of Rotation ( fulcrum/axle ), and if they have even mass distribution then they each have a moment of inertia which resists acceleration but also equally resists deceleration .. a lever and a disk are one and the same in this context ..

Comment .. I bring to your attention MT's 48 and 44, specifically the final comments B. made about them .. from JC's MT ..

Digital Copy .. No. 48 This is a sphere invention having a paternoster with pockets. A is a wheel. As the pocket-paternoster C raises the spheres, it passes over B, the axle of the wheel. At D the spheres are ejected into a channel. At E the spheres fall into the wheel, and at F they are ejected again into the paternoster. Here, an insufficient number of spheres is carried to the wheel A by means of the paternoster. The principle is good, but this figure will bring about no mobility by itself until completely different, additional structures have been provided.

Hard Copy .. No. 48. This is a round-weight invention, with a bucket conveyor. A, is a wheel of whose axle B, the bucket conveyor C. Passes as it raises the balls, and ejects them into a chute at D. At E the balls fall onto the wheel, which ejects them back into the bucket conveyor at F. Not enough balls are supplied by the bucket conveyor in this invention. The principle is good, but the figure as it is will not give birth to any motion until completely different structures bless this marriage.

Digital Copy .. No. 44 The sphere-method is reintroduced here. The problem shows 2 wheels: A is the main wheel, the axle of which has a gear at B. B drives the somewhat larger wheel C at point D. At side E are spheres which fall out of side G at point H below and into wheel C at point I and then out of C again into A at point F. This problem looks good, but as sketched it does nothing special as long as no other application is present, for the wheel A must revolve several times before C revolves a single time. Thus not enough spheres move from the former into the latter.

Hard Copy .. No. 44. Here the spherical weight method is reintroduced. The illustration shows 2 wheels. A is the main wheel, and its axle has a cog B. B drives the slightly larger wheel C at point D. In the latter wheel, C, at side E, are rounded weights which have fallen out of side G at point H, below, and enter wheel C , at point I, and they are then put back into the wheel, A, at F. This proposed model looks good, but as sketched it does nothing special as long as nothing else is applied: for, the wheel A, must rotate several times before C revolves a single time. Thus not enough spheres move from the latter to the former.

What imo he is saying imo is that both are satisfactory temporary overbalance systems ( well known ones ), but on their own there is no special motion or continued mobility ( i.e. the standard problem ) UNTIL .. "completely different, additional structures / as long as no other application is present / as long as nothing else is applied" ..

He imo is not saying that some small tweaking of gearing etc is required to speed up the ball delivery rate etc ( it can never keep up ! ) - unless his PHYSICAL PM Principle is ADDED and enacted - and his PM Principle embodiment is not a small thing like compartments .. it is additional STRUCTURES ( interesting choice of words - suggesting something physically intimidating/having presence, of size and substance ) which have an APPLICATION ( i.e. are physically applied to a non-working OOB wheel ) ..

IOW's imo, a large structure with presence is then added to and applied to the non-working overbalance format wheels so that they can both achieve the required lift to reset, and, have an a growing acceleration ( "gain " ) and do external Work ..

ETA imo .. the Physical PM Principle is a structural and significant ADD-ON ? - additional too ! - the basic ( many to choose from ) non-working overbalance wheel format - and then, the 2 systems brought together interact, building and reinforcing each other via a positive feedback over and over, forming a "true mechanical PM wheel" - i.e. using the strengths of the other to grow and self-sustain carrier wheel rotation, do external work, and fully restore/reset internal GPE of the entire assembly each revolution ..

[SHADOW]

Bonjour Flecher,
suite à votre description, seul un accélérateur de déplacement de livraison peut adéquate. (je pense à l'utilisation du Lazytong).
Ce principe est utilisé pour la mise en carton, de boites et de paquets de café. mais il faut trouver l'energie pour le mettre en oeuvre!

Hello Flecher,
following your description, only an accelerator of moving delivery can adequate. (I think of the use of Lazytong).
This principle is used for the packaging of boxes and coffee packets. but you have to find the energy to implement it!