The Wheel is solved in a New Norwegian Patent

[Tarsier79]

Quelqu'un peu faire quelque chose pour le taré de service ?

Non, mais quelqu'un pourrait peut-être vous indiquer où sortir la tête.

Perhaps we could have a civil conversation, and you could explain why you think this isn't a dead duck.

[thx4]

Quelqu'un peu faire quelque chose pour le taré de service ?

Non, mais quelqu'un pourrait peut-être vous indiquer où sortir la tête.

Perhaps we could have a civil conversation, and you could explain why you think this isn't a dead duck.

Le problème c'est que tu dis tout et son contraire en moins d'une heure, ferme-la, merci
The problem is that you say everything and its opposite in less than an hour, shut up, thank you.

[agor95]

Hello Frog

Welcome to The Questers.

Good to see new ideas.

Regards

[Roxaway59]

Hi Frog, firstly can I congratulate you on coming up with a design of wheel that is using concepts like those of the Bessler drawing. That drawing has puzzled me for over 20 years and I have often thought about how it might be used on a wheel.

I do have a fairly good imagination but I learnt a long time ago not to fully depend on my reasoning when it comes to the positive and negative forces on a wheel design especially when those forces reach a certain amount of complexity.

If I take your drawing at face value the very first thing that strikes me is that what ever this mechanism does it has to move the weights quickly into position and this has to happen naturally since any force used will likely tear it apart and impart a negative bias on it.

I'm guessing that you don't have a working machine at the moment.

Have you simulated this in WM2D or Algodoo?

Is your design purely theoretical?

Graham

[Frog]

Hi Frog, firstly can I congratulate you on coming up with a design of wheel that is using concepts like those of the Bessler drawing. That drawing has puzzled me for over 20 years and I have often thought about how it might be used on a wheel.

I do have a fairly good imagination but I learnt a long time ago not to fully depend on my reasoning when it comes to the positive and negative forces on a wheel design especially when those forces reach a certain amount of complexity.

If I take your drawing at face value the very first thing that strikes me is that what ever this mechanism does it has to move the weights quickly into position and this has to happen naturally since any force used will likely tear it apart and impart a negative bias on it.

I'm guessing that you don't have a working machine at the moment.

Have you simulated this in WM2D or Algodoo?

Is your design purely theoretical?

Graham

The drawing is not for an engineer, it’s for the patent examiner - it’s showing the principle of the invention.
This is the bidirectional wheel - it’s more difficult than the one that only goes one way, if you want I can send you that one.
And. - no it’s not just theoretical.

[Roxaway59]

Hi Frog, yes the more information you can post the better because it helps to build a better understanding of how this works.

At the moment the only way I can see the one you have posted working is dynamically with certain forces kicking in once it is turning. So I take it the one way wheel is perhaps easier to understand?

Cheers

Graham

[sparkshade]

The drawing is not for an engineer, it’s for the patent examiner - it’s showing the principle of the invention.
This is the bidirectional wheel - it’s more difficult than the one that only goes one way, if you want I can send you that one.
And. - no it’s not just theoretical.

Video?

[johannesbender]

An observation i made is the drawing shows weights distributed unevenly , how many weights are there actually and are they distributed like in the drawing because it shows non symmetrical distribution , or symmetrical distributed ?

But not sharing my opinion on it , since the title reads "The Wheel is solved in a New Norwegian Patent" , i would advise you approach such claims with proof too.

[sparkshade]

An observation i made is the drawing shows weights distributed unevenly , how many weights are there actually and are they distributed like in the drawing because it shows non symmetrical distribution , or symmetrical distributed ?

But not sharing my opinion on it , since the title reads "The Wheel is solved in a New Norwegian Patent" , i would advise you approach such claims with proof too.

I personally thought it was just an idea. Waiting for proof now lol

Patent in question: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publica ... OC&locale=#

Light on details. Waiting for proof.


Crazy, a norwegian patent is only ~143USD ??

[johannesbender]

Oh i was just talking in general , my opinion if i may give it freely (as i am suppose to be able too) is it would have no net torque , they're torque all cancel out if its symmetrical distribution , except i am not sure why its not drawn symmetrical so i cant say.

[sparkshade]

To me, the only way this moves, is if the pendulums moving up on their rotor are swaying left and right momentarily creating weightlessness like milkovic pumps. The other interesting thing, is when the pair of weights slam shut. But this wheel will stall in most positions. Of course the holders/rotors when they are free to move on their pivot exercise torque at their pivot points. When extended at 9 the pair of weights will have positive torque but in between when transitioning they are cancelled. The wheel wants to turn only due to it's inertia.

[Frog]

Hi Frog, yes the more information you can post the better because it helps to build a better understanding of how this works.

At the moment the only way I can see the one you have posted working is dynamically with certain forces kicking in once it is turning. So I take it the one way wheel is perhaps easier to understand?

Cheers

Graham

The wheel is working asymmetrical - one half works as a pendulum, the other half is a flywheel.
This is only possible with three pendulums because it’s the only configuration that always is in equilibrium.

It’s only B-N-O pendulums - only three.
You activate the wheel when you add Kinetic energy to rotate the wheel with a lock pendulum at the top from B to A
- Now the flywheel has potential energy to the top of the flywheel-
Now the locked pendulum has potential energy (from the added kinetic energy) to swing from A to R2
The pendulum is hanging in a one way bearings - so it will lock and not swing from position R2
- Now the potential energy change direction towards the bottom of the flywheel -
NOW - the - FLYWHEEL - starts a pendulum movement.
When the pendulum moves to the bottom - (D) the pendulum movement ends because the one way bearings in the pendulum
All the kinetic energy that is generated by the pendulum movement of the flywheel is then transferred to the flywheel.
The potential energy is different.
This is just math now.

[johannesbender]

Hi Frog, yes the more information you can post the better because it helps to build a better understanding of how this works.

At the moment the only way I can see the one you have posted working is dynamically with certain forces kicking in once it is turning. So I take it the one way wheel is perhaps easier to understand?

Cheers

Graham

The wheel is working asymmetrical - one half works as a pendulum, the other half is a flywheel.
This is only possible with three pendulums because it’s the only configuration that always is in equilibrium.
IMG_1217.jpeg
It’s only B-N-O pendulums - only three.
You activate the wheel when you add Kinetic energy to rotate the wheel with a lock pendulum at the top from B to A
- Now the flywheel has potential energy to the top of the flywheel-
Now the locked pendulum has potential energy (from the added kinetic energy) to swing from A to R2
The pendulum is hanging in a one way bearings - so it will lock and not swing from position R2
- Now the potential energy change direction towards the bottom of the flywheel -
NOW - the - FLYWHEEL - starts a pendulum movement.
When the pendulum moves to the bottom - (D) the pendulum movement ends because the one way bearings in the pendulum
All the kinetic energy that is generated by the pendulum movement of the flywheel is then transferred to the flywheel.
The potential energy is different.
This is just math now.

The symmetry makes more sense now that you mention its only 3 weights , i thought it was about 10 weights , which seemed odd the way it was drawn in odd positions .

[sparkshade]

This is just math now.

Did you create a physical wheel? (Pretty sure we won't have an answer to that)

I hope you realize when you are winding up the pendulum from Top until released, you have counter-torque. The "passive side" is not passive, it has negative torque + your negative torque reloading the pendulum. You have 2 weights on passive side that you need to move up and an additional counter-torque when reloading that pendulum.

[Tarsier79]

The problem is that you say everything and its opposite in less than an hour, shut up, thank you.

I don't think I have contradicted myself. Perhaps there is something lost in translation.

My stance on this design from the start has been: I don't see any possibility of it self sustaining. Again, most probably a "lost in translation" issue, but "The wheel is solved..." in english is a statement of completion.... In actual fact, it is not solved, and IMO a statement that it is without proof is akin to a fraudulent claim.

Did you create a physical wheel? (Pretty sure we won't have an answer to that)

Im pretty sure we do have the answer to that. It looks like you might be the closest to building it though.

This is only possible with three pendulums because it’s the only configuration that always is in equilibrium.

Again, not the way I see it. 1 mechanism with a counter weight , 3,4, 5, 8 or 360 will not change how each pendulum functions. Obviously there are other things at play.... Position and angle of action vs wheel inertia...etc.