Symmetrically Balanced Systems – are they able to develop useable torque ?

[Fletcher]

I tend to agree Ralph. I don't think it exclusively rules it out so it remains a possibility. Of course you don't need a counter weight if the axle is fixed like a bike axle (with threaded nuts) which is easy to do nowdays.

An opinion.

The reason people's exploration into perpetual motion ends in failure, specifically Bessler related ideas, is because they are captivated by the illusion of the outer surface of the machine, namely that it is a wheel. Who says that the inner device works as a wheel?

That's true & a very hard illusion to break free of. If a circular motion (wheel) is not necessary & is part of the illusion then it would indicate to me that an alternative mechanism could be linear i.e. much like a see saw or water well lift pump. Able to lift itself up to height, extract some energy to do work, go back down & then repeat the process. It is plausible that rotation of the whole device may not be a requirenment at all (but it adds intrigue).

If that were the case I think it lends solid support for an environmental force which extracts energy from a gradient.

Alternatively, if it is absolutely imperative that the motion to reset the mech is circular & not linear then nothing can be ruled out as that would indicate that gravity has a large part to play. JB says they are gravity wheels.

When people construct on the template of a wheel, they only usually consider the typical wheel structure, basically that a point one one side bears a connective relationship to a point on the other side [leverage & torque ??], instead of considering a connective relationship some of the time, and at others none at all.

Now call me stupid Michael but that last part quote is a little to cryptic for me to understand what you mean ? :)

[rlortie]

Fletcher and Michael,

Michael wrote;

<instead of considering a connective relationship some of the time, and at others none at all.>

I too am having a problem with this. With the exception of levers and or wheels that trade off the mass causing the leverage. Such as a wheel within a wheel. Leading us back to the forever debatable "looks like a grindstone". This is the only way I see a connective relationship becoming intermittent.

An outer wheel, gravity fed with moderate velocity and inertia to maintain force on a heavier slower mass that is more forgiving by redundance to unequal balance.

Ralph

[Michael]

Hi Fletcher,

One example might be, a weight system where from 12 to 2.00 the weights have a working relationship to weights positioned somewhere at the 6.00 to 8.00 positions (these are just examples) and from 2.00 to 4.00 and 8.00 to 10.30 there is no working relationship at all.
I can't say much more right now but there are countless systems for contemplation that use a "connected then not connected" system, that can be explored.
Bessler's given one or two hints about this type of system the value/meaning is there even though the statement is somewhat vague; such as a weight flying upwards.
A part of the reason for the break could be to generate power. The reconnection could constitute as part of the noise heard, as well as something occuring with the break could. Sorry to be vague at the moment but I think this says alot. I can say more at a later date.

There are other machines related to power generation that use a connection and then break schematic. Actually probably all of them do in some form. A spark gap distributor or spark osscilator is one example, a capacitor is another, a windmill is a third.

[Michael]

edited.

[Guest]

I'm new to this message board and tuned in to this thread because it seemed to be the most popular at the moment.

I've seen in others WM2D mentioned. What is that? Some sort of modeling program I know, but how to get? How much cost?

I've tried some physical experiments before, but not a whole wheel. I've tried connecting levers and counterweights together on a balance beam, since a wheel is just that anyway. Every time you touch a lever or try to take power from one it throws everything off...

Otto

[AgingYoung]

Otto,

If you click the link in my signature block it will take you to wm2d. If you want to buy a copy I think it's around $2k but if you want you can get a demo for free.

Gene

[jim_mich]

Welcome to the Bessler forum, Otto the Torque Seeker.

Before you proceed further we need to you to repeat the Bessler vow...

"I swear, by whatever I believe to be sacred, to never claim to have a working wheel, unless or until I have a physical wheel built and it continually turns for a substantial amount of time."

If you ever break this vow then, "Hell hath no fury like what will rain down upon your head from members of this forum."

You may claim that you have an idea, a theory, a concept, a hunch, or, or.. But an honest to goodness working perpetual motion wheel is what we all seek. We don't like to be yanked around or lied to.

Other than that we are a rather freindly and helpfull bunch. Some of us have been seeking for many years.

[SeaWasp]

Hear, Here! And that should be pinned in the welcome section of the board!

Oh & btw... I hear that snpssaini has a working wheel from here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1212

[rlortie]

Jim_mich

I like your Bessler vow, and believe new and old should adhere to it. I know I will.

BUT! I think you or a forum pole should set a time limit on what is a substantial amount of time. Some kitchen table modelers may build one to find that it is limited by workmanship or material and not meet a specified goal. Having no relation to design criteria.

If you wish to open a poll on "substantial" I would vote for 8 hours.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

I contemplated what limit should be used and did not want it specific. I did want it to be more than a short time and I knew perpetual meant forever. So I settled on substantial as the best word to use.

Definitions of substantial:

[adj] fairly large; "won by a substantial margin"

[adj] having substance or capable of being treated as fact; not imaginary; "the substantial world"; "a mere dream, neither substantial nor practical"; "most ponderous and substantial things"- Shakespeare

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.a ... ubstantial

[ken_behrendt]

Welcome, Otto...

I think you will like this Discussion Board. There are a lot of interesting ideas being posted on it and we are always eager to see what other inventors have been up to...if, of course, they are willing to share their thoughts.

Yes, WM2D is the "coin of the realm" around here. It's available free and does a fairly good job of allowing one to see it their mechanical hunches are worthy of further pursuit. I would also recommend that you get a free download of the MS Paint program and maybe the MS GifAnimator program. The Paint program will allow you to make simple sketches that you can post and the GifAnimator comes in handy if you want to show how parts are supposed to move in one of your designs.


Jim and Ralph...

Before declaring that one has a working gravity wheel, it would be nice for it to run for more than a few minutes...that might only be due to momentum or something.

I guess to eliminate this possibility, the more massive the wheel, the longer it would have to run to convince someone that it was not running off of momentum. Even better yet would be if it could be rigged up to do some work in its environment like, say, operating a small fan or pump of some sort.

Ralph's suggestion of 8 hours seems a bit much for a small table top wheel. Of the many physical models I've constructed in the past, I doubt that any of them would have held up for 8 hours. Maybe an hour or two, though.


ken

[jim_mich]

I know that "substantial" is like "simple" in that it is not precise. A few minutes would definitely NOT be substantial. A small table top device that turns for a few hours or a ferris wheel sized wheel that turns for a few days would be substantial. Good proof would be a continious load while it is running like you suggest. The very best load would be a simple prony brake which would show how much continious power it is outputing while running.

[Guest]

I've made my weights by building wooden boxes then filling them with lead shot. It's easier to get them equal weight this way.

Got the lead by melting down car batteries in a wood stove.

[Wheeler]

I was starting to do the same thing, and bought a wood stove guaranteed to burn for 24 hours.
It did!
It was made of solid oak.

[ken_behrendt]

I suspect that when one of us finally gets the "real thing" then he will not be wondering if it will work or how long it will run. He will notice that it "wants" to run and has a "robust" performance. I think it will be immediately obvious. In every past model I built, it was obvious to me within a few seconds of releasing it that it was not right. The real thing will probably tell you immediately that it is a winner.


ken