The Wheel is solved in a New Norwegian Patent

[thx4]

@tarsier désolé, :) ont c'est mal compris c'était sans offense. L'idée c'était de le laisser s'exprimer plus en détail avant de juger...

J'ai un peu bossé sur le concept, comme beaucoup ici.
Ce qui est sur quand la grenouille te dit que la gravité n'est pas la source d'énergie, c'est que sa roue tourne dans l'espace intersidéral... Extraterrestre lol.

Il veut déposer un brevet, donc on sait que cela ne marche pas, (comprend qui le peut) .
Pour faire de l'argent... Encore plus con.
En vérité il vient prendre un shot d'adrénaline en venant prétendre avoir enfin trouvé.
Bref comme d'habitude, "je sais tout mais je ne dirai rien", un de plus dans la fosse aux lions.
C'était très amusant, merci pour l'instant.

@tarsier sorry, :) ont c'est mal compris c'était sans offense. The idea was to let him express himself in more detail before judging...

I've worked a bit on the concept, like many here.
What's certain when the frog tells you that gravity isn't the source of energy, is that his wheel is spinning in interstellar space... Extraterrestrial lol.

He wants to file a patent, so we know it doesn't work, (understands who can) .
To make money... Even dumber.
In truth, he's here to get a shot of adrenalin by claiming he's finally figured it out.
In short, as usual, “I know everything but I won't say anything”, one more in the lion's den.
It was a lot of fun, thanks for the moment.

[Sam Peppiatt]

It's gravity, right enough. Why he denies it, I don't know. It sounds "like bull shit"; (to me). If it isn't gravity, then it won't work at all----------------Sam

[Fletcher]

Ditto to Spark - crisp and clean lever assembly .. what did you use for the spring, it works well ?

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

Nice work - love it

if the weight follows a track it loses the momentum on the axis of the flywheel, it can’t work.

But the sim is :-*

Hi Frog - thanks for the reply ..

I have to admit that I'm a bit stuck visualizing what you are meaning above ..

fwiw in the sim track scenario I built the system COM/COG spends too much time on the right hand side of the vertical line beneath the axle ( in 1 revolution it spends time on the left and the right ) - and additionally there is plenty of energy wastage as heat etc to impacts as the disks hits their respective track 'stops' which is lost energy from the system which is not replaced with this arrangement .. this means that while net torque is zero per revolution the energy losses to impacts ( n.b. slides are frictionless ) quickly dampens the disk rpm and it slows quickly ..

My thoughts when building it were that the pivoting track with disk would be a close approximation for your dual geared pendulums - in that in your geared arrangement at just before 9 o'cl they open and move out to a greater radius and close again - their combined COM just shifting radially from the inner radius to the outer in a similar fashion to the track disks ( I thought ) - then the dual pends would also collide wasting impact energy in the same manner as the tracked example sim .. also that it would be affected by lag and Cf's as per my sim ..

OK, so if all other things being approximately equal between your dual pendulum arrangement and my track disk sim then if I understand you correctly you have identified that the dual pends opening and closing and their combined COM changing radius is the advantage over my track disk scenario - in that you are suggesting that the act of geared together opening and closing keeps them in constant contact with the disk and torque on the axle i.e. continues to impart momentum while shifting to the disk even while changing radius etc ..

I would argue that the track and disk shifting COM sim scenario also stays in contact with the disk and also continues its torque and momentum contribution to the wheel - at this stage I can't visualize an obvious advantage for the geared pendulums to provide that extra bit of torque at the axle which would cause the wheel to continue to accelerate and gain rpm instead of losing it as per my sim ..

If you can clarify further what you believe is happening at 9 o'cl to give that extra torque it would help all of us begin to better understand what you were describing above !

cheers -f

[Tarsier79]

Hi THX

I am turning into a grumpy old man. I don't lie down when I think someone is attacking me.... and sometimes this is unfounded.

Anyway, I have had some experience with how the double pendulums work...

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/down ... &mode=view
https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 152#p74152

Who needs gears when you can use a piece of string?

I also believe I understand what makes them move, or not move... Adding a spring to this doesn't really do much. If it helps one way, it hinders the other.

[johannesbender]

Frog,
..... Also, I don't understand why you can't have more than three----------------Sam

Now I'm really confused!!!!!!!!!!!

Sam the reason is this , if there were for example 10 as i have drawn here , A and B would have their torque and COG/COM opposite and equal which would cancel out their torque and their COG/COM except the height would drop , C and D would also have their lateral COG/COM and torque equal and opposite except D would drop the COM/COG down.
The main COG/COM for all together would be below the axle and have no real lateral displacement , so no torque would result.

Where as if you use 3 for example as Frog indicates , A would displace the COM/COG to the left while B and the other would drop it below the axle ,So A would add torque to the wheel.

The issue with this is , as the wheel rotates (CCW) , the COM/COG would reach 6 o'clock before A reaches 6 and before B reaches 9 o'clock to reset , when the COG/COM goes past 6 it adds torque to the opposite direction of rotation (CW).

Same problem i illustrated with my last design : for a design that does not lift , for the mechanism to reach reset position , the COG/COM has to be behind the mechanism and not in front so that it is pushing and not pulling , this way the mechanism could reach 6 o clock and 9 o clock , but for that to happen it becomes a lift.

So in other words , horse must be behind the cart instead of horse in front of the cart , or if you understand it the other way around then make the cart in the image the horse and the horse in the image the cart , for that to happen the COG/COM must be lifted to be higher or displaced very far left until it sits behind the A mechanism .

EDITS: images where corrected

[Frog]

Hi THX

I am turning into a grumpy old man. I don't lie down when I think someone is attacking me.... and sometimes this is unfounded.

Anyway, I have had some experience with how the double pendulums work...

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/down ... &mode=view
https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 152#p74152

Who needs gears when you can use a piece of string?

I also believe I understand what makes them move, or not move... Adding a spring to this doesn't really do much. If it helps one way, it hinders the other.

Yes - strings is excellent.
You got the double pendulum almost correct.
Still you try to make an overbalanced wheel - and that won’t work as you know with 100% knowledge, because you have built a model.
Thank for your input - it helps me to understand what people don’t understand.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi jb,
You're mistaken. In the top drawing there are eight. All seven are perfectly balanced except the one at B. Because, It is the only one locked to the wheel, therefore it is OOB. When the next one gets to position B it will be OOB and so on and so on.

jb, this guy is full of it!! But if you buy it, fine with me------------------Sam

[sparkshade]

Yes - strings is excellent.
You got the double pendulum almost correct.
Still you try to make an overbalanced wheel - and that won’t work as you know with 100% knowledge, because you have built a model.
Thank for your input - it helps me to understand what people don’t understand.

LOL. How do you know yours is any different? You failed to demonstrate more than a simple drawing! You failed to show up any proof. You didn't back anything up with maths or a physical model. You simply paid 192$ USD to have your name attached to a asymmetric drawing, your patent office is so lame it accepted a perpetual motion device without proof!

[Sam Peppiatt]

sparkshade,
I think I see what's going on. He doesn't have a patent yet, but is planning to apply for one. If he can fool us, maybe he can find a way to fool the examiner-------------------Sam

[sparkshade]

sparkshade,
I think I see what's going on. He doesn't have a patent yet, but is planning to apply for one. If he can fool us, maybe he can find a way to fool the examiner-------------------Sam

He surely don't have an international patent, so he basically just gave us this billion idea for free lol!

[johannesbender]

Hi jb,
You're mistaken. In the top drawing there are eight. All seven are perfectly balanced except the one at B. Because, It is the only one locked to the wheel, therefore it is OOB. When the next one gets to position B it will be OOB and so on and so on.

jb, this guy is full of it!! But if you buy it, fine with me------------------Sam

That is incorrect Sam , as much as B goes out , So much A also goes in , they cancel (tested and confirmed) 10 would have no OB.
I am just explaining why it does not work that's all , no buying going on.

[Sam Peppiatt]

sparkshade,
Right! We can patent it too. Maybe that will make it work-----------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi jb,
I worked with them for 3 years. I don't think I'm wrong; if that means any thing--------------------Sam

[sparkshade]

Ditto to Spark - crisp and clean lever assembly .. what did you use for the spring, it works well ?

Thank you Fletcher.

I used a guitar string for the spring. But it's more of hindrance than an activator in this case, it would make more sense to shift using wheel momentum since the masses are cancelled when the shifter is horizontal.

I'm going to actually stop working on this now, I have enough proof that it doesn't work as it should, I'm going to go back to my actual designs that have more chance of working. When I saw his one-way wheel it was clear it's not what I thought it was initially.

[Frog]

Frog,
I like the gravity one a lot better. That's a really good way to swing the pendulums, I never thought of that. But, they can't lock,(lock to the wheel), from B to A, can they? Also, I don't understand why you can't have more than three----------------Sam

Now I'm really confused!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi Sam - don’t be confused, the reasons it’s not better with more pendulums is that - if change the number of pendulums the equilibrium (of this wheel with three pendulums) disappears and you get equilibrium positions!
- Two pendulums make two equilibrium position
- four pendulums make four equilibrium positions
- and so on, so you can’t make the flywheel to one big pendulum - and you need one big pendulum to change the direction of the potential energy in this way.
This wheel is always in equilibrium - in any position as long as the pendulum hangs freely.
If you lock one pendulum to the wheel you -CREATE- an equilibrium position.
This wheel is not overbalanced (heavy on one side).
You change the direction of the potential energy and that changes the kinetic energy.
The kinetic energy that you use to turn the wheel with a locked pendulum from B to A is stored in the wheel with the locked pendulum and it wants to turn the wheel back to the position at the top where the pendulum was locked.
When you release the pendulum the potential energy goes from the wheel to the pendulum and the pendulum uses all the potential energy and generate kinetic energy so the pendulum can be lifted up to the opposite side of the pendulum movement, so the pendulum swing from A to theR2 where the pendulum again have potential energy, in this top position the pendulum is locked to the wheel and the potential energy goes back to the wheel, and now the wheel starts a new pendulum movement from position R2 down to D and here the wheels pendulum movement stop because the pendulum is unlocked from the wheel, so that the generated kinetic energy goes to the turning of the wheel.
So the kinetic energy that lift the pendulum to the R2 position comes from the kinetic energy that is used to turn the wheel with a locked pendulum from B position to A position.
You always have to use kinetic energy to turn the wheel with a locked pendulum from B to A.
When the pendulum is locked in the R2 position it makes the wheel out of its equilibrium position.
Yes the gravity is used to turn the wheel to its equilibrium position but the gravity didn’t the produce the energy that brought it to that position.
Think about gravity as an electric cable - you need the cable to get energy but the cable isn’t the energy.
An in a windmill - the air is not the energy - is the moving air that brings energy.
- gravity is the medium for energy - not the source of energy -
- But if you change a potential energy direction you also change the energy -