The Wheel is solved in a New Norwegian Patent

[sparkshade]

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.

Thanks mate! .. I can't believe the frog is not leveraging my good faith here, he lost a golden opportunity in my opinion, because now I'm pissed and won't touch that idea ever again.

[Frog]

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?

Morning Spark.
And please - this is a serious question, not a mockery of any kind.
How old are you?
The reason I ask is because I want to reply correctly and constructive.

-Frog

[johannesbender]

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 , all forces acting on an object adds up to one final result , all of the forces on the wheel adds up to one final result for example all torque forces are calculated to one final torque , all the mass distributions on the wheel adds up to 1 balance point (point of equilibrium) the center of mass(COM) also synonymously-referred to as the center of gravity(COG) .

The wheel does not have multiple points of equilibrium , it has one final point of equilibrium and this single point of equilibrium is moved around by the positions of the weights , so every time the weights move around or distribute their mass differently on the wheel - the total sum results in one single point of equilibrium .

[Frog]

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 , all forces acting on an object adds up to one final result , all of the forces on the wheel adds up to one final result for example all torque forces are calculated to one final torque , all the mass distributions on the wheel adds up to 1 balance point (point of equilibrium) the center of mass(COM) also synonymously-referred to as the center of gravity(COG) .

The wheel does not have multiple points of equilibrium , it has one final point of equilibrium and this single point of equilibrium is moved around by the positions of the weights , so every time the weights move around or distribute their mass differently on the wheel - the total sum results in one single point of equilibrium .

Correct!
- so if a flywheel with one meter radius has two identical hanging pendulum on each side and you turn it so one pendulum is 5 o’clock the flywheel will turn with a oscillation behaviour until it levels out with one pendulum at 9 and one at 3 that is one equilibrium position, between those two pendulum it is a second equilibrium position if you turn the wheel so they can change position.

-Frog

[daxwc]

Frog: Morning Spark.
And please - this is a serious question, not a mockery of any kind.
How old are you?
The reason I ask is because I want to reply correctly and constructive.

Master trolling. Everybody needs to quit giving cat food to the troll under the bridge.

[Robinhood46]

If Frog wants to do something "correct and constructive", he can start by apologising for taking us all for complete jerks, admit that he doesn't actually have a runner, or know factually that his solution does work.
He can then ask us nicely to forgive him for being a "bit if jerk" and starting off on the wrong foot.

I for one would be more than happy to accept his excuse for being a complete dick, and forgive him, after all he's only human like the rest of us, and we all get a bit over enthusiastic about our ideas every now and again. We just don't go around claiming we have a runner, or that we will in a few days, or all the other shit we have to put up with, when members confuse a wheel really going around in their head, with a real wheel going around in reality.

[Roxaway59]

Correct!
- so if a flywheel with one meter radius has two identical hanging pendulum on each side and you turn it so one pendulum is 5 o’clock the flywheel will turn with a oscillation behaviour until it levels out with one pendulum at 9 and one at 3 that is one equilibrium position, between those two pendulum it is a second equilibrium position if you turn the wheel so they can change position.

-Frog

So Frog has never used a simulator, never actually built real experiments and only uses his imagination to decide what something is going to do.

Meanwhile he is arguing with people who have done all of these things for many years.

I think the word that fits best is arrogance.

You are a very arrogant person Frog and really you should apologize for wasting peoples time and effort.

Graham

[Frog]

I’m sorry!
-Frog

[Roxaway59]

Well as far as I am concerned, apology accepted.

You will find that no-one here is perfect but if you ask for advice and help most of the time you will receive it.

Graham

[Fletcher]

fwiw .. in the interests of clarity, for when words are not enough ..

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



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

[sparkshade]

fwiw .. in the interests of clarity, for when words are not enough ..

Bingo.

[Frog]

fwiw .. in the interests of clarity, for when words are not enough ..

Bingo.

And that’s why Lady Justice scales are vertical.

-Frog

[agor95]

I’m sorry!
-Frog

I think it's possible to show you some compassion and tolerance.

You can learn a lot from 'The Quest' about how the world works and about yourself.

Forum's of this format can be a harsh communication channel.

You would think a simple pendulum and devices that contain them are easy too understand. This is far from the truth.

All the Best

[andyblues]

frog save the world from your words and simply show your design working, there are many ways to communicate but as the old saying goes a picture speaks a thousand words , these guys sit up all night all day and think, they are devoted to help us all, i am so proud to be one of them, make your design visual or leave them alone, sparks has knocked out your design in no time ,very impressive, show him the respect he is worthy of and gain a friend or loss respect here ,its your choice ,good luck to you, Andyb

[Fletcher]

Lady Justice Scales - horizontal, vertical, no preference - depends on where the pivot is ..

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



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