Grease power

[preoccupied]

I think that I just thought of something. Tell me if you think it's a good idea.

What if I cause the spring to cancel itself out early and then it still has pressure on the levers, so there would be constant pressure on the levers but manipulation the position of the spring could cancel out early. If I have the springs lever turn 180 degrees on 4:1 ratio with the lever with the weight on it then I can pull it out that 180 degrees and then have it tug back on the next gear for 180 degrees at 4:1 ratio by switching the gears connections. Then if there is constant force on the levers by the spring then I have another 135 degrees turn worth of spring that has phantom distance on the levers because the levers are geared to move slower. The levers move slower and are being pulled on by the spring and the spring is geared to move faster but only applies to the wheels overbalance early.

Spring turns 180 degrees but has constant pressure on the levers turning 1/4th of that. Then the gears reverse and the spring pulls on the wheel 180 degrees, the gears finish tugging on the wheel but still apply pressure to the slower geared to move levers. The levers are geared to the catch and the wheel. They will move 1 to 1 ratio with the wheel in order to separate and when this happens the spring is geared to the catch and wheel 4:1 ratio. This creates a phantom distance because the levers and gears move in the same direction so when the levers switch to a slower gear ratio the constant pressure from the spring will apply to the slower gear ratio through this phantom distance. It reverses direction and the 4:1 ratio is applied back to the wheel then stops and still has constant pressure on the levers for 135 degree turn of the wheel while the levers are geared to the catch and wheel at a slower gear ratio. Can this be possible? can a lever and spring move in the same direction and then you just change the speed of the levers when directions are switched with constant force from the spring for extra 135 degrees of the wheel having free spring action?

The animation would be closer to my original drawing with the blue circles in the center of the wheel because the spring would apply 4:1 to the wheel and the only difference in that drawing would be that the levers would be geared to move slower also so blue circles in the center and perimeter of the wheel. I didn't draw this yet but that is my description.

So if the levers and gears move in the same direction and there is constant force on the levers by the spring, if the levers change speed and the spring reverses at the same speed against the catch. the spring will finish early and a phantom distance moving slower would get free spring action if the levers change pace to a slower gear ratio. Is constant pressure from a spring energy?

[preoccupied]

I tried this variation realizing the obvious that it was more overbalanced. First I tried a 4:1 gear ratio, and that came out to be a resistance of 2 of the weights by 4 on the gear ratio by 2 from the spring to be 16. I got the about the same amount of overbalance from the weights with a 2:1 gear ratio which gave me the resistance of 2 of the weights times 2 of the gear ratio times 2 of the spring to be 8. The overbalance was about 8.2. I also tried drawing before these the 1:1 ratio and this left the weights shifting with less overbalance with the same resistance of about 8. So I think the overbalance at 1:1 ratio was about 6 or I forget what it was, it didn't work vs the resistance of 8. It's okay that the overbalance be a little overbalance by 0.2 because I'm sure the Universe considers the catch a loss. The way to reduce the loss from the catch is to make the catch smaller closer to the axle and make the levers longer. I like this variation. I don't think I made any mistakes thinking about it whereas my other ideas might be too complicated for me. I think if I drew the levers a bit bigger it would be overbalanced in measurements. A build would require some kind of drum because the gears are really close together against the catch all put together.

[preoccupied]

I'd like to welcome you to discussing here with me if you think this about angular momentum, that it applies more force if done faster. I've arranged an overbalanced position of weights in which they shift 4:1 ratio against the direction of the wheel geared together against a catch- like my many drawings recently, and then it shifts in the direction of the wheel geared against a catch 1:1 ratio which is faster. The springs force cancels out what it applies to the catch and wheel but I hypothesize because it is shifting 4x faster that it applies more angular momentum to the wheel. I don't know if the spring strength is relevant. But I think if you set up the weights at a length less than the gear applying to the catch that the wheel will turn without pushing it. I think this because I think that the weights would provide less resistance and the spring cancels out. But that detail is not very well thought out by me, I am just thinking ahead a little on that with ideas. I mean something causes the wheel to turn by itself in some of Bessler's wheel and the only thing I see in my design options is to make the levers smaller than its gear. The spring pulls in the weight faster though causing angular moment to be harder on the wheel at a 1:1 ratio always 4x harder than the four at a fourth slower speed going outwards at a 4:1 ratio.

[preoccupied]

Are the levers and the size of the gears relevant? If I hang a weight on a gear by a string on its perimeter does it have more torque than if I hang a string and weight nearer its axle? Does that mean that a gear larger in size would remove some force from a lever pulling on it? I think if that's true then I have a spring only design that I had shared. I think so because the ratios cancel forces out but then the lever is also deducted. Why do the ratios cancel out forces? As it's pulled apart at 4:1 ratio, it's the force divided by four plus itself 4 times. Then there is a 1:1 ratio 4 times faster against he catch in the center and this pushes the entire force once, and not divided by 4. So if the gear size is relevant to the lever, the gear size is also smaller on the 1:1 ratio, so it has extra torque because here is less removal of leverage from the larger gear by using a smaller gear. But is this true what I am thinking? If I place force on different parts of a gear, is it the same as using a relative size lever?

In my drawing I have a 4:1 ratio that engulfs the lever in the size of the gear and then I have a 1:1 ratio that the lever has some extra distance beyond the gear size. The gears catch different catches with different gears so that they can trade role easily.

[preoccupied]

In this drawing I further exaggerate the gear size to the size of the lever with the spring. I have arranged a 6:1 ratio with a 4x larger catch in the center. This gives a 24x difference in size of gears from the gear in the 1:1 ratio to the gear in the 6:1 ratio. If it were just based on the ratios then it would be a neutral machine. But if the size of the gear matters when it is turning the lever with the spring on it then it should lightly turn the 6 6:1 ratios an additional lightness because the gear is much bigger than the lever that has the spring on it, that I have exaggerated deliberately to try to have a special effect. This is an ongoing use of my idea of putting a catch in the center of the wheel and manipulating it with gear ratios. Based on the gear ratios it should be neutral, the 1:1 ratio should be 6x stronger than the 6:1 ratios and it should be balanced. But in this exaggeration there should be a big difference if the size of the gear matters also. I haven't figured out the math yet. I know that I changed the leverage against the wheel by changing the catch size but the gear size should matter also and it should be significant.

[preoccupied]

This is a fresh change of subject in my overbalanced wheel ideas. There is a well known physics concept (although I can't think of it by name) that allows air to move more forcefully through a cylinder if there is a gap between the air pressure and the cylinder because a volume of air draws into the pressure from outside the path. So I have a little idea here where a funnel can produce air pressure from moving on the wheel and it has a gap between it and a cylinder and it pushes its air pressure towards the cylinder and drags some air behind with it creating more pressure to push a pedal that will shift some weights to keep the wheel overbalanced. The weighs would have to be similar to the air pressure in stature. The cylinder can have a door that closes on one side and opens on the other. If I were to guess that if this were Bessler's real wheel design that it would be this door closing on the cylinder that is making the banging noise as the wheel turns. On one side of the wheel the cylinder would pedal up a weight and on the other side it would close.

[preoccupied]

In this overbalanced wheel I am trying to shift the weights with no counter torque. I think that I did a pretty clever job doing it too. The weights are
geared to stay upright while rising on the right side of the wheel here. I also have drawn the weight to be geared to shift 4:1 ratio back upright and I assumed a spring could help. A spring would have a zero sum game against itself because the gear ratios are symmetrical. It's spring power of 4 1x's on the ascending side resisting the wheel and 1 4x's shifting the weight on the bottom. Some variations of the spring use could help. The spring could shift a longer distance and the lever could stop early on the bottom side. Or the spring does not do this. Maybe the spring is wound up 1:1 ratio at the same rate it's unwound. So it would need its own catch for that. Then the wheel would need to be overbalanced by the force to lift the lever only and because it's overbalanced by like 1.7 lever distance on the top left, and it has zero torque to shift the weights up. The force to lift the lever up if the spring is attached to the little green circles should be similar to when it's rewound at 1:1 ratio. I was thinking earlier in the paragraph of the zero sum game if the spring connection were on the red circle length and it split up its activity between 1:4 ratio and 4 1:1 ratios. it's a zero sum game on the red lines for the spring against itself. But if the wheel is powered by gravity this should work if the spring is connected to the green circles and rewinds itself at 1:1 ratio. The catch gives about the distance of the lever gains the wheel. I remember before that I was trying to minimize this by putting the catch super close to the center. I think if the spring had a catch closer to the center it would still work. The spring strength is not relative to a lever but the position it applies force on the catch which effects its movement on the wheel does. But the effects it applies to the wheel doesn't matter because it cancels itself out if it's 1:1. I think it's interesting to play with the feedback loops of springs but in this case while the gravity is the prime mover the spring cancels out at 1:1 ratio only but if it has a catch closer to the center of the wheel it would have less resistance I think too.

[preoccupied]

I moved the weights in so that the spring doesn't have to be 4x stronger to move the weight. This puts less burden on the overbalanced weights to rewind the spring if it catches to rewind back at 1:1 ratio that it turned. There is an interesting thing that when the weights shift they have no torque and they have 4x longer lever moving the non torque. Maybe an invisible advantage? So the 1.7 lever length on the top left should be able to shift the 1 lever length needed to spring the lever upright on the bottom because the spring no longer has to be 4x stronger than the weight. I fixed it. What's missing in my MS painting is only the dynamic of the spring catching a separate catch to turn in reverse and wind itself on the wheel's momentum that same distance that it unwound. If you look at it the only thing being moved at a 4:1 disadvantage is the half circle which could be assumed to have no weight for purposes of examination, it is not meant to be a weight.

[preoccupied]

I scaled down the connection that made it closer to the axle when the spring compresses from the motion of the wheel. This should make the spring force against its catch in the center be similar force to the overbalanced weights against the wheel. The gear set up I added is in purple.

The set up is identical to the one that turns the lever using green gear except it's 4x smaller so that it can be close to the axle. It connects by small gear outwards to the far gear giving it a 8:1 MA on that gear then it loses the 8:1 leverage to pick up speed on the gear train, that connects 1:1 MA with the spring which is in green at the correct speed. Also indicated in the drawing is that it will catch on the 45 degree turn after the lever turns, in that the inner catch is highlighted in purple will be used after the 45 degree turn that the lever will take. The spring pulls the lever up in 45 degree turn on the green gear and then the spring is compressed on the inner catch highlighted in purple for the next 45 degrees.

[preoccupied]

Scaled up to a large size wheel the weights differences would be more pronounced. This drawing tries to fit the gears without overlapping too much. The intention of the design is to have the spring rewinding be about the same as one overbalanced weight which are on the left descending side of this drawing, the wheel turning CCW. To make the rewinding of the spring similar to the weight I put the catch for the rewinding action closer to the axle, which required a gear train to adjust the speed, but the force remains the same; I guess the force might be tied to the angel at which it turns and not the gear sizes and positions. The catch needs to be closer to the center and that will reduce the springs force against the wheel while its being rewound as it touches the catch. I think where it touches the catch is where it applies force on the distance from the axle of the wheel. So you can see in the left drawing in the image that because I split the wheel into two parts I have some space on the diagonal ends to fit the gear train to rewind the spring. The spring can release its force on the bottom 45 degrees like somehow. I have it imagined that it would catch the larger inner circle (one of the catches) and turn 45 degrees using the medium size circle, a gear, the medium size circle turns 180 degrees and flips the lever upright using the force from the spring unleashing its power. Then it rewinds back on the inner catch and its gears and gear trains at what I think I have arranged to be a 1:1 distribution of force at the correct speed. I gain the speed and distribution correct (if I did!) by having the 4:1 gear scaled down another fourth to be closer to the axle. When the super small gear attaches to the larger medium size gear it should gain MA and then lose it when speeding up the next gear train resulting in just 1:1 power struggle for those particular gears. And that's great if that's correct because I just want the gear closer to the axles that rewinds the spring.

You would be so welcome to help me with whether I made any mistakes in my mechanical arrangements. I have really appreciated the input of you in particular Fletcher, I think maybe the smartest guy on the forum that I see regularly. haha. Also, Tarsier79 please tell me what I might have made a mistake in if you have any interest in this. What I think I have here is is a shifting weights design that has a few weights furthest they can be from the axle extra than is needed to rewind the spring that brings the weight up. If this is what Bessler's mainly quoted clue is, that weights applied force at right angles to the axis, what the weights in my design do is stay straight up on the ascending side so they have no torque resistance to shift upwards all of the way up. The weights should have very little or none if slow enough speed resistance to shifting upright to the top of the wheel starting at the bottom. The "axis" in Bessler's clue might not be very clear because its an old German take on the word, who actually knows what he was referring to. What if he was referring to the horizontal line on the drawing board that you put your triangle on in drafting? The straight edge. What if the straight edge on the drafting board is what Bessler meant by the "axis". And I speculate that maybe the people at the time when he described the wheel workings understood he meant the straight edge, maybe everybody who could when he gave clues at the time knew that the weights were supposed to be upright and what they missed, I speculate, was how to shift the weighs using a 4th of a turn of the wheel using gears, which could be why Bessler talked about 1 lifting 4 in clues. Because if the 1 lifting 4 clue was about an ideal why to arrange this design, I have found it synchronized to use 4:1 measurements for my gears trying this idea.

I still think I have brain damage. I have had a lot of head trauma in my life but some time has passed. I want to say though, I am out of contact with my childhood educational credentials. I remember before being adopted, and my mother says I'm not adopted but before she adopted me around 3rd grade year, I had an advanced University level education but it wasn't in physics and I think I was a medical researcher in CRISPR. I had then in the late 80's mostly information on Bessler but in German only text. I have some secrets that I invented when I looked into about the topic, such that I think I have a gear train that applies more force on one end than the other, that I invented then as a kid that I used Bessler's clues to find but I do not think was part of Bessler's wheel and I think it's just something I found because I was looking for over unity. Such a gear train is akin to a super weapon and I'm just not comfortable if I'm right willy nilly floating it publicly. I think that this design that I'm sharing though is cool that I've drawn with the gears and the upright levers. I would really like to know if I made a mechanical error. Because this design if it's a working overbalanced wheel could really possibly be Bessler's wheel. I know Bessler gave a lot of other clues, maybe they were not all relevant or were different working designs.

[SHADOW]

Bonjour Preoccupé,
La transcription de votre idée est devenue plus compréhensible!
Avez vous vérifié tous les sens de rotation avec le ratio de réduction?
Essayez de passer le chapitre de vos capacités mentales et de vos allucinations dans vos démonstrations, nous sommes tous plus ou moins décalé au niveau de notre entendement mental!!

Hello Preoccupied,
The transcription of your idea has become more understandable!
Have you checked all the rotation directions with the reduction ratio?
Try to pass the chapter of your mental abilities and your hallucinations in your demonstrations, we are all more or less offset at the level of our mental understanding!

[preoccupied]

SHADOW,

In my black and white image recently posted I think I only drew one of the belts wrong on accident which would have it not connected to the gear with the spring on it. If you can see the gear train located on top of the left drawing is connected to a different gear by its belt. If I didn't make that mistake I wouldn't have made a mistake on the drawing. The spring turns the lever CCW when bringing it upright so the rotation direction on the inner anchor will turn the spring back the other direction CW. So I think I have the rotation directions correct. What do you mean by reduction ratio? The winding of the spring should be about similar to the force of one overbalanced weight on the descending side of the wheel because I have the spring gear and weight distance on lever and anchor size that winds the spring the same length. I just have to trade anchors in order to have the anchor that winds the spring also be the same length also, by using that gear train I drew. Or that's the idea!

[preoccupied]

I colored in where the anchor gear/catch touches. In green the larger gears rotate around each other which keeps the lever upright as it ascends up the wheel. The blue line shows where the spring gear connects to the anchor, that gear will turn 45 degrees on the wheel as it flips the weight upright 180 degrees, the lever turns 180 degrees. The reduction ratio for this should be correct because the half of the medium sized gear fits on 45 degrees of the larger anchor gear/catch. In red is where the smallest gear trades anchors and uses the smaller anchor to wind the spring. The reduction ratio should be correct for this because the small gear turns halfway around or 180 degrees and fits on 45 degrees circumference of the anchor gear/catch, and then causes the medium size gear through the gear train to turn 180 degrees also. The wheel is turning CCW so first in blue then the red and green spots are used on the anchor gears/catches. So not all of the lines are mechanically there in the circles I drew, for the anchor is actually just in the colored areas.

[preoccupied]

This overbalanced wheel tries to use two catches/anchors in the center. Starting on the left the blue catch turns the weight upright. Depending on how much that costs this could be overbalanced because it costs nothing to keep the weight upright on the ascending side. The blue gears should have MA against the catch/anchor gear. So lifting the weight would cost more. I know this because the weight turns twice as fast as the wheel. But I don't know if it costs necessarily 2x more. The reason it might cost more is that the catch is located 125 pixels from the center of the wheel where the pressure would be applied. I don't know if it's 2x 125 pixels on the catch or if it actually is just 2x by the 63 pixels that the blue gear is to turn the lever. If it's 2x 63 pixels because the blue gear is that then this would be smoothly overbalanced wheel ,in which the gears move in synchronized so that it's constantly overbalanced. 2x 125 pixels would be 4x and I consider 2x 63 pixels 2x based on 1x being the weight on the levers.

I think all of the parts could be built and put together successfully with some gears being elongated to attach to belts and to make room for some gears that overlap, if two main circle frames hole different gears axles. It's crowded but it's a little less crowded with the wheels in two parts like I've drawn, they would just have to attach to be moved together. Still the blue gears overlap a little with the green gears so in a build it would require elongated gears to allow them circles to be in different spots even though they share similar spots.

[preoccupied]

This is kind of a lever pulling on its own self by means of a spring, if that can work. I don't know if it would work. Follow the red lever. You will see that on the descending side the spring pulls it out to the left but what would be the drive of the wheel would actually be it falling down and the spring pulling on its own lever sort of. I did originally have it drawn such that the purple line was pulling on the same gear that supports the orange platform. But I thought to myself that might not work because it directly is the platform pulling on itself by a spring. So in superstition I put the (haha physics superstition) I put a separate gear there to pull on and the separate gear is tugged on by the lever to try to make the gear arrangement moving in the direction that the wheel is turning to turn faster. What drives the wheel is the falling of the weight on the ascending side by the spring tugging on the arrangement to try to make it turn faster. It actually turns in unison but the spring tries to make it turn faster by pulling on the gear. I have a 4:1 gear pulling on a gear movement that is turning in unison. that is being tugged by the spring.

one, the red lever is swinging between the orange platform

two, the orange platform is turning in unison staying upright with the large green gears

three, the small green gears and the small green gear with the purple gear on it is turning in unison also

four, the gray spring pulls the weight out on the descending side by compressing.

five, the gray spring decompresses and tugs on the wheel through a 4:1 gear trying to make it turn faster. The gears are mostly moving in unison so it's not exact that I should use a 4:1 gear but it does seem to fit fine.

six the wheel itself is turning CCW.

I mainly believe like I said previously that I think perhaps when Bessler talked about right angles to the axis that perhaps is was referring to the straight edge on a drawing board, and that what he meant is that the lever that controls the movement is an upright lever. So the green gears keep the orange platform upright at right angel to the straight edge on the drawing board. Which might me an right angle to the axis. If in old German right angle to the axis could have been referring to right angle to the straight edge of a drawing board. The orange platform stays upright because of the green gears. This allows a straight up and down reaction using the red levers. So on the ascending side on the right the weight is pulled downwards by the whiplashing effect and it pulls on the spring and the spring pulls on the gears moving in unison 4x its strength tryi9ng to make it move faster because the only way the spring will move is if the whole gear arrangement moves a little faster because they are all basically in unison, the whole thing has to move for the springs pressure to take effect. The springs pressure is under a 4:1 lever in purple.

Can a lever pull on itself? This idea might test that.