The Wheel is solved in a New Norwegian Patent

[coretux]

Oh, that’s fine. Good to know. Didn’t know that.

Thank you for telling me.

And thank you for replying to me.

Sorry for being bothersome.

I wasn’t trying to be at all.

Thank you again.

Will do.

Bye.

Hi coretux .. RH46 is well known here for his views on only working on public profile projects, and nothing in private - many others feel the same as we are a community of like minded individuals who want to solve how Bessler built his 'runners', and what was their energy source - that's our main focus - additionally many of us have been at it for years and are the resilient ones who remain at the coal face doing the experiments with sims or real-world builds, and collectively analyzing the results and learning from them ( at least, that is the aim ) - we learned a long time ago to put aside our ego's and contribute to the common goal and good to have a chance to crack this very hard nut.. of course there are some who persist on their own and don't share what they are doing or experimenting with, and that is their prerogative - some are somewhere inbetween ..

FYI there is a Private Forum here where you can start your own Topic and invite members to join you etc .. not everyone will be willing to do that like RH46 but you may get a few who wish to do so, especially others who want to patent etc ..

There is also a Private Messaging function to the forum where you can contact other members and they you - I suggest you start a new Topic about you finding the assistance you need and leave this Topic to the owner Frog, and those willing to discuss his ideas ..

cheers -fletcher ( long time member ) ..

[Fletcher]

Oh, that’s fine. Good to know. Didn’t know that.

Thank you for telling me.

And thank you for replying to me.

Sorry for being bothersome.

I wasn’t trying to be at all.

Thank you again.

Will do.

Bye.

Hi coretux .. RH46 is well known here for his views on only working on public profile projects, and nothing in private - many others feel the same as we are a community of like minded individuals who want to solve how Bessler built his 'runners', and what was their energy source - that's our main focus - additionally many of us have been at it for years and are the resilient ones who remain at the coal face doing the experiments with sims or real-world builds, and collectively analyzing the results and learning from them ( at least, that is the aim ) - we learned a long time ago to put aside our ego's and contribute to the common goal and good to have a chance to crack this very hard nut.. of course there are some who persist on their own and don't share what they are doing or experimenting with, and that is their prerogative - some are somewhere inbetween ..

FYI there is a Private Forum here where you can start your own Topic and invite members to join you etc .. not everyone will be willing to do that like RH46 but you may get a few who wish to do so, especially others who want to patent etc ..

There is also a Private Messaging function to the forum where you can contact other members and they you - I suggest you start a new Topic about you finding the assistance you need and leave this Topic to the owner Frog, and those willing to discuss his ideas ..

cheers -fletcher ( long time member ) ..

ETA .. fwiw - Bessler himself said he was a conduit for his god to reveal a working Perpetual Motion Machine ( PMM ) - else he would not have thought of it, altho it is incredibly simple to build and easy to understand as says he and one trustworthy witness who saw the interior workings .. so given B's. experience and capabilities, and skills, you can see the head-winds blowing in our faces - while most don't expect a divine intervention some of us do believe that our combined talents will inevitably bring us closer to the mechanical solution to a runner, if by only weight of numbers pushing the boundaries of rational classical science and experimentation possibilities ..

No problems coretux .. all the best .. let's leave this thread to Frog and his wheels ..

[Robinhood46]

I have been there done it and i don't want to go there again. I might even get a T shirt printed.

I will tell you exactly what will happen.
You will share your amazing idea(s).
I will tell you that i have already given it some thought or something very similar, or that this member or that member has covered it in a thread, you will then insist that i don't talk to others about the thoughts i have had for years, because you just made a suggestion similar to my own thoughts. I will try to explain what the Donald Trump Syndrome is, where you think something is absolutely amazing and brilliant, because you have just thought of it. The fact that millions of other people have been looking for over 3 centuries without success doesn't make you think that whatever you think of, someone else has already thought of it. A new thought to you is a new thought ONLY to you. It is only because Donald Trump learns something for the first time, that he thinks it's an amazing discovery that just happened. Sliced bread wasn't invented the first time you see sliced bread, people had been eating it for years before you learnt about it. The same goes for literally every type of PM attempt.

What you want to keep secret, isn't even a secret, it's only a secret to you, because you believe you are the only one who has ever thought of it. there are probably a few hundred people with exactly the same secret, they are all keeping it all hush hush, because they don't want all the others to know the exact same things the others have already been thinking for months, if not years.

The only way you can be pretty sure nobody has ever had the thoughts you have, is if you have an actual runner, in which case you don't need anyone to help you, because you already have a runner. Anything short of having a runner means, in all probability, someone, if not many people, have already tried where you are trying. What exactly is it you want intellectual property of? The first of us during a conversation to use the word "spring"?
How does it work if i help you advance "a bit" with your plan? The bit i supplied, am i free to share it with others, or do you have intellectual property of my thoughts too? because it was for your plan that my thoughts were helpful? Is nobody on the planet allowed to benefit from my thoughts, which could help them with their wheel, because we all have to wait until you finally acknowledge you failed, like the rest of us, before our discussions become public?

I hope i can make this very clear so we don't waste each others time. My opinion is that members who don't want to share their ideas, for whatever reason, are selfish. Selfish people who are more interested in themselves being the discoverer, than the solution being discovered.
I can fully understand the desire to be the discoverer, or inverter, i can also understand the desire to be rich and famous, i can even understand the desire some have to have the control and the power they are crazy enough to think inventing PM would give them. I can understand lots of reasons to not want to share their ideas, i just think each in their own corner hasn't worked for 3 centuries, and there is probably a reason for it. We need a collective effort and a collective effort cannot exist if every individual wants to be the one that gets us across the finish line.

Run your race on your own in whatever direction you wish and i sincerely hope you make it across the finish line.
We don't have to put our own personnel benefits before the well being of the whole of humanity, we choose to. This is why i call them selfish.
I also acknowledge that everything has been done to encourage everyone to be the selfish people they are. But we do have the right to call bollocks, and not go along with it, just like we have the right to call bollocks on this perpetual motion being impossible lark.

[Robinhood46]

Lol.
Fletcher is more diplomatic than me when it comes to expressing our different views. But we are on the same page.

[Frog]

fwiw .. since I've been writing this you guys beat me to it lol ..

This is what Frog is saying ( it has been said before but I will go another round ) ..

He has 2 designs - a one-way wheel single pendulum design of 3 equal spaced pendulums - and a two-way wheel double pendulum design of 3 equal spaced geared double pendulums spring activated to flip position at 9 o'cl rather than swing from inside to outside radius as per the one-way ..

He believes that the wheels are force balanced ( i.e. there is no torque ) in any wheel position or any position the pendulums are relative to their pivot whether locked ( with a lock and/or one-way bearing activated ) or free to hang below their pivots - he also believes that for a CCW wheel when the pend bobs pass tdc and lock the bob is at its smallest radius from the axle - since they can not freely hang below their pivot the bob will rotate in a retrograde ( backward ) direction relative to its pivot on the main wheel, thus gaining PE relative to its pivot position ( he believes this does not create any back-torque in the wheel ) - once the bob rotates to about 9 o'cl position and is activated the pend will either flip ( double ) or swing ( single ) to the outside radius where it locks again - at this position it has transferred its retrograde gained PE from the upper left quarter as it rides the balanced wheel to a lower left quarter PE that does not leverage the wheel around to release its PE - its PE release/transformation is directly into KE gain of the flywheel it is locked to for that phase and before it unlocks at bdc - thus not all gravity PE is created equal ..

He believes with his view of the physics that the wheel is force balanced at all times and what makes it accelerate is the storing of inner radius PE in the upper quarter being transformed into greater radius lower quarter PE releasing that PE directly into flywheel KE without leverage principles ( torque ) ever being applied ..

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

Frog made no mention of the sims supplied where the system COM/COG was obviously one side or the other of the vertical line beneath the wheel axle indicating very real leverage principles in play in the form of positive and negative torque positions advancing or retarding the flywheel rpm .. he apparently did not understand this visual cue prediction to wheel torque, replicated in Spark's real-world build performance ..

He also has said that his double geared pendulum arrangement is a two-way wheel ..

Questions for Frog ..

1. Is my general description above accurate ? - if not please correct my misunderstanding from your point of view ..

2. How does your geared double pendulum arrangement accelerate in the opposite direction ( reverse direction to CW ) - does it require a dual set of locks and one-way bearings for each pendulum which are direction activated/deactivated ?

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

Hello Fletcher

1: No - no one inside here understand the difference between this and an overbalanced wheel.
- this is not overbalanced in any way! If you think overbalanced you can’t grasp the concept.

- gravity is not a source of new energy - a overbalanced wheel will NEVER WORK.
- Gravity is a reaction, it is like a job done, an end product, a finished engine, done painting.
- gravity is like a car engine that needs gasoline to run, no gas = no work.

2: just one lock on each DP

-Frog

[Fletcher]

Hello Fletcher

1: No - no one inside here understand the difference between this and an overbalanced wheel.
- this is not overbalanced in any way! If you think overbalanced you can’t grasp the concept.

- gravity is not a source of new energy - a overbalanced wheel will NEVER WORK. .. agreed that gravity is a force, and a force is not energy ..

- Gravity is a reaction, it is like a job done, an end product, a finished engine, done painting.

- gravity is like a car engine that needs gasoline to run, no gas = no work. .. many here view gravity force as the enabler of a runner, or a catalyst to a runners acceleration and self-movement, if you prefer - most don't think a runner would run deep in space, or horizontal ( i.e. vertical axle ) ..

2: just one lock on each DP

-Frog

1. " this is not overbalanced in any way! " - it is my contention that a wheel can only accelerate and maintain its rpm, while overcoming ordinary system friction losses and/or doing external Work to-boot, by exactly having an imbalance of forces .. gravity is a force ( weight force ) and there are others such as centripetal forces inside a revolving wheel ..

What I dispute in your claims is that your wheel is not overbalanced in any way - clearly the sims and real-world build by Spark show that the system COM/COG oscillates to the left and right below the axle line - this is gravity induced torques about the axle - these torques net out to zero ( that is not the same as no overbalance of any kind, it means net zero torque ) - when ordinary system dissipative energy losses take some rotational KE from the wheel out as heat, sound, vibrations etc the wheel moves towards one of the balance positions where torque is zero and stops there ( see the real build ), which is also a position of the least system GPE ..

It is up to you to convince us of your analysis methodology and physics integrity for your "solved runner" Frog ..

Best ..

[Fletcher]

If you are feeling 'push-back' from us for your physics analysis and explanations ( and we mainly believe a runner is not only possible, but was once a real machine doing Work ) what do you think the push-back will be from the scientific community at large, and the rest of the world ? - you'll need more than a provisional patent application and some drawings for the examiner - in most of the world the very least you need for a patent for a runner is a real working model that can and will be examined before it will be granted to you or your interests - failing that a bullet-proof physics explanation that a bar-maid can understand and the math to back it up to show where the energy comes from, imo ..

[johannesbender]

@Frog ,

From NASA at https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airpl ... quilibrium.

A very basic concept when dealing with forces is the idea of equilibrium or balance. In general, an object can be acted on by several forces at the same time. A force is a vector quantity which means that it has both a magnitude (size) and a direction associated with it. If the size and direction of the forces acting on an object are exactly balanced, then there is no net force acting on the object and the object is said to be in equilibrium. Because there is no net force acting on an object in equilibrium, then from Newton's first law of motion, an object at rest will stay at rest, and an object in motion will stay in motion.

Equilibrium is balance , yet you stated on page 1 , that 3 of those DP's does not create equilibrium , and that if there are more or less than 3 DP's that there are no equilibrium points which makes a motion impossible .

Yet later (recently) you state the 3 DP's is in complete balance (equilibrium).

Equilibrium means balance , which means you admit that 2 DP's in the same manner of operation does not create balance and that 3 DP's in the same manner of operation does not create balance , but about 10 creates balance .

Three equally distributed pendulums with equal weights do not create equilibrium positions on a flywheel.
If there are more or fewer pendulums, there will be an equal number of equilibrium points, which makes a large circular pendulum movement impossible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
These are not masses in periodic motion on two sides of a wheel.
- It's not a whole pendulum movement.
- It’s not a wheel that has equilibrium points.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are three holders for double pendulums, but they do not change the flywheels equilibrium, so the wheel can stand in any position - the wheel is balanced in any position.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If a holder with double pendulum is locked into the flywheel, -ONE -equilibrium position occurs.
If the wheel is turned out of this equilibrium position, the wheel will return to this - ONE - equilibrium position with an oscillating movement.
Or a pendulum movement.

Torque is the force measurement that creates a rotation on an object about its axis , if the wheel turns in any direction even for 1 degree due to a force then it had a torque force , a torque force is the rotational equivalent of a linear force .

If there is any Torque on the wheel , then it is not in equilibrium/balance , the only way that a Torque is produced on a wheel to rotate about its axis , is when there are forces not in equilibrium/balance , if all forces are equal and in equilibrium/balance then there would be no motion about its axis of rotation , and hence that means there is no net force on the object in any direction .

If there are equal weights on a lever and these weights are applying their equal forces at equal distances from the axle and their total calculated Torque forces cancel out - then they are in equilibrium/balance (it does not matter how many) , no torque results.
However when there are equal weights on a lever but some of them are applying their force's at different distances from the axle and their total calculated Torque forces does not cancel out - then they are not in equilibrium/balance , a torque results.

Take a look at this lever , it has a pendulum (B) on the one end hanging on a pivot at a distance of 1 meter from the axle, and a pendulum (A) locked on to the lever facing to the side on the other end at a pivot of 1 meter from the axle , for convenience lets say the pendulum arms are massless.

Lets say pendulum B stays hanging perfectly on its pivot , because pendulum B hangs from its pivot point on the lever , its weight's force is pulling on the pivot point , its force is acting downwards on the pivot point , and if the lever was rotated at a slow speed it would keep hanging and its weight's force would keep pulling on the pivot , so the force acting on the pivot for the lever stays more or less the same and at the same position , 1 meter away from the axle.

Pendulum A however which is locked to its pivot on the lever and pointing to the left , applies its weight's force at a greater distance from the axle than the distance to its pivot point , so the forces on the axle for each is different because the distances to where the forces apply are different , they are not in equilibrium/balance.

[sparkshade]

No no no, it works on 'trust me bro' physics, guys!

[Sam Peppiatt]

sparkshade,
Maybe, if you could measure the force it takes to turn the wheel after the pendulum(s) latch; Frog would see what he is up against. Then taking it a step farther, measure the force you get back, when they flop down.

It might be on the order of 4 to 1. I.E., four times more to reset the pends. then what they put back in. Also, the time or rotation to do it, will be 4 times longer.

But, only if you want to fool with it---------------------------Sam

[Frog]

@Frog ,

From NASA at https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airpl ... quilibrium.

A very basic concept when dealing with forces is the idea of equilibrium or balance. In general, an object can be acted on by several forces at the same time. A force is a vector quantity which means that it has both a magnitude (size) and a direction associated with it. If the size and direction of the forces acting on an object are exactly balanced, then there is no net force acting on the object and the object is said to be in equilibrium. Because there is no net force acting on an object in equilibrium, then from Newton's first law of motion, an object at rest will stay at rest, and an object in motion will stay in motion.

Equilibrium is balance , yet you stated on page 1 , that 3 of those DP's does not create equilibrium , and that if there are more or less than 3 DP's that there are no equilibrium points which makes a motion impossible .

Yet later (recently) you state the 3 DP's is in complete balance (equilibrium).

Equilibrium means balance , which means you admit that 2 DP's in the same manner of operation does not create balance and that 3 DP's in the same manner of operation does not create balance , but about 10 creates balance .

Three equally distributed pendulums with equal weights do not create equilibrium positions on a flywheel.
If there are more or fewer pendulums, there will be an equal number of equilibrium points, which makes a large circular pendulum movement impossible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
These are not masses in periodic motion on two sides of a wheel.
- It's not a whole pendulum movement.
- It’s not a wheel that has equilibrium points.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are three holders for double pendulums, but they do not change the flywheels equilibrium, so the wheel can stand in any position - the wheel is balanced in any position.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If a holder with double pendulum is locked into the flywheel, -ONE -equilibrium position occurs.
If the wheel is turned out of this equilibrium position, the wheel will return to this - ONE - equilibrium position with an oscillating movement.
Or a pendulum movement.

Torque is the force measurement that creates a rotation on an object about its axis , if the wheel turns in any direction even for 1 degree due to a force then it had a torque force , a torque force is the rotational equivalent of a linear force .

If there is any Torque on the wheel , then it is not in equilibrium/balance , the only way that a Torque is produced on a wheel to rotate about its axis , is when there are forces not in equilibrium/balance , if all forces are equal and in equilibrium/balance then there would be no motion about its axis of rotation , and hence that means there is no net force on the object in any direction .

If there are equal weights on a lever and these weights are applying their equal forces at equal distances from the axle and their total calculated Torque forces cancel out - then they are in equilibrium/balance (it does not matter how many) , no torque results.
However when there are equal weights on a lever but some of them are applying their force's at different distances from the axle and their total calculated Torque forces does not cancel out - then they are not in equilibrium/balance , a torque results.

Take a look at this lever , it has a pendulum (B) on the one end hanging on a pivot at a distance of 1 meter from the axle, and a pendulum (A) locked on to the lever facing to the side on the other end at a pivot of 1 meter from the axle , for convenience lets say the pendulum arms are massless.

Lets say pendulum B stays hanging perfectly on its pivot , because pendulum B hangs from its pivot point on the lever , its weight's force is pulling on the pivot point , its force is acting downwards on the pivot point , and if the lever was rotated at a slow speed it would keep hanging and its weight's force would keep pulling on the pivot , so the force acting on the pivot for the lever stays more or less the same and at the same position , 1 meter away from the axle.

Pendulum A however which is locked to its pivot on the lever and pointing to the left , applies its weight's force at a greater distance from the axle than the distance to its pivot point , so the forces on the axle for each is different because the distances to where the forces apply are different , they are not in equilibrium/balance.

Thank you for your reply and great drawing!

We can use your drawing to explain this.

If you mount it on a flywheel and

- if this two is hanging down because the force of gravity works they’re level out and they are in 1 of 2 equilibrium position,
the other one is if you turn it 180 degrees, if you take one away it only one equilibrium position, if you make a cross and two more pendulum you get four equilibrium positions and so one.
- but if you have three mounted Ina 120 degrees apart then it’s no more equilibrium position -zero equilibrium position-

You can’t use “Sparks” model - it is a nice build, but wrong.

-Frog

[Frog]

Hello Fletcher

1: No - no one inside here understand the difference between this and an overbalanced wheel.
- this is not overbalanced in any way! If you think overbalanced you can’t grasp the concept.

- gravity is not a source of new energy - a overbalanced wheel will NEVER WORK. .. agreed that gravity is a force, and a force is not energy ..

- Gravity is a reaction, it is like a job done, an end product, a finished engine, done painting.

- gravity is like a car engine that needs gasoline to run, no gas = no work. .. many here view gravity force as the enabler of a runner, or a catalyst to a runners acceleration and self-movement, if you prefer - most don't think a runner would run deep in space, or horizontal ( i.e. vertical axle ) ..

2: just one lock on each DP

-Frog

1. " this is not overbalanced in any way! " - it is my contention that a wheel can only accelerate and maintain its rpm, while overcoming ordinary system friction losses and/or doing external Work to-boot, by exactly having an imbalance of forces .. gravity is a force ( weight force ) and there are others such as centripetal forces inside a revolving wheel ..

What I dispute in your claims is that your wheel is not overbalanced in any way - clearly the sims and real-world build by Spark show that the system COM/COG oscillates to the left and right below the axle line - this is gravity induced torques about the axle - these torques net out to zero ( that is not the same as no overbalance of any kind, it means net zero torque ) - when ordinary system dissipative energy losses take some rotational KE from the wheel out as heat, sound, vibrations etc the wheel moves towards one of the balance positions where torque is zero and stops there ( see the real build ), which is also a position of the least system GPE ..

It is up to you to convince us of your analysis methodology and physics integrity for your "solved runner" Frog ..

Best ..

Thank you again for your reply.

- it is not running because there is a unbalanced of force’s.
- it runs because it is a unbalanced of energy.
- because the wheel with three pendulum (or double pendulum) is always in equilibrium (if you don’t lock) it doesn’t have any equilibrium position ore point's but you can make one.

This wheel starts to run because you start to brake it
- the brake is: generating PE against the rotation by using kinetic energy - a physical input from you.
- when the wheel is turn to a given angle the pendulum is set loose and take the generated PE in the wheel and use it in a pendulum movement and use all the PE and generate new KE that is equal to that you put in, this KE is used to lift the pendulum up to its highest position with new PE, now the pendulum locks to the wheel again.
- now the wheel again got PE from you input of KE in the beginning.
Now something is changed this PE is not breaking the wheel but swinging with the wheel, the PE has changed direction.
This PE is generating more KE then you put it - it’s that simple

And - no the new KE isn’t generated from gravity - it just looks that way:-)
And - Sparks model is wrong - the sizes are wrong it’s without flywheel - it will never work even if he did understand me.
-Frog

[sparkshade]

You can’t use “Sparks” model - it is a nice build, but wrong.

-Frog

Damn if only we could use your model ;)

[sparkshade]

And - no the new KE isn’t generated from gravity - it just looks that way:-)
And - Sparks model is wrong - the sizes are wrong it’s without flywheel - it will never work even if he did understand me.
-Frog

Then give proper dimension you dumb fuck! You are either a troll or extremely retarded. It's easy to go back to page 5 and give the maths and dimensions. Are we suppose to figure that magically? Are you a kid?

[Tarsier79]

He could be a child. He is very naive. Apparently three mechanisms tap into orgone energy or something, because they don't create equilibrium points like 2 or 4 does.... Not the way you built them though Spark. Yours uses gravity unlike Frogs. His has to be mounted in a gravity field, but it isn't a gravity wheel. KE turns into PE, which also is not a function of gravity, it is just potential energy. Also, It doesn't make sense why no-one can understand him. It is obvious why there is an excess of KE...It magically appears. I don't know why people keep thinking it is gravity doing this... It is clearly not. Also, your wheel doesn't have a flywheel. It doesn't matter what type of flywheel, or what weight. 3D printed mechanisms have no intertia, so don't act like a flywheel. And your guitar string isn't a force multiplying spring as per requirements. If you understood how it worked, you would have just built a working wheel.... And also, I can't show you my working model, because you would think it is a hoax.

;)

Spark, your model is a correct reproduction of the information in the patent. It is functionally identical, but not identical to how it works in never-never land. If I need a reproduction done, or 3d design that is beyond me, I will definitely ask you first.