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

[Fletcher]

I almost agree Ken. It may need some tweaking to smooth the motion out & improve efficiency etc but the principle that develops a net force (to use at your discretion) will be clear & indisputable.

In fact you'll almost certainly begin to see how to create the force in the planning & building stage well b4 the first test run of the prototype, otherwise you wouldn't have followed that particular path of investigation in the first place.

I'm not a believer in dumb luck ala "I stumbled on the answer". It will take investigation, experimentation & lots of deduction.

[Guest]

I just wonder if there is anyone lurking out there that would claim that your wheel was their idea too.

Your wheel could refresh their memory.

[ken_behrendt]

Fletcher wrote:

I'm not a believer in dumb luck ala "I stumbled on the answer". It will take investigation, experimentation & lots of deduction.

I agree with this. When I say that it will require a LOT of luck to find the secret mechanism, I do not mean to suggest that one can start from scratch and on the first try find something that works. Although, I guess that is technically possible, but highly, highly improbable...kind of like buying one lottery ticket in one's entire life and hitting the jackpot with it.

My definition of getting "lucky" is for a person to have worked on the problem for their entire lifetime and then, in an odd moment of inspiration, to see the final configuration needed to achieve PM. And, of course, this is how I consider Bessler to have done it.


ken

[AgingYoung]

Fletcher,
I agree with your statement:

I'm not a believer in dumb luck ala "I stumbled on the answer". It will take investigation, experimentation & lots of deduction.

If you don't understand the finer points and have some specific objective in mind it would be a miracle if you ever solved this matter; it would be well beyond dumb luck. Fine point.

Gene

[Fletcher]

I just wonder if there is anyone lurking out there that would claim that your wheel was their idea too.

Your wheel could refresh their memory.

Without a doubt, for a multitude of reasons, not all honorable.

When the dust settled many would realise that while they were close (or at least thought they were in the same ball park) for what ever reason, they were unable to bring it all together & see the complete picture, else they would have done so for themselves already.

Some would kid themselves temporarily that they 'new that', it just hadn't come into full focus yet. Some posturing would follow from some sources & excuses & claims of plagiarism might follow by some. The rest would be supportive & reflective at the same time.

There would be many a privately dented ego & the line to sit the mensa test would shorten for a while. At least until the lump on the forehead had gone down where it was banged on the desk top :)

[Wheeler]

Good point
yealing at the person next to you wont do any good either.
May I suggest a padded steering wheel, and maybe stopping the car and getting out to get it out of your system.
A good distance from the keyboard may help, but keep the phone pre diled to 911 and try to reach for it.
Give yourself another problem may help.
Kick the table and bite on a cd.
you may make it through the night if you cry out loud.

[AgingYoung]

Torque Seeker,
you posted:

I just wonder if there is anyone lurking out there that would claim that your wheel was their idea too.
Your wheel could refresh their memory.

If you note this thread begin with this idea on the 17th.
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:08 pm

i.e. is it hypothetically possible to create sufficient linear torque from tension & compression forces, whilst losing only minimal system potential, & converting that into useable rotational torque to drive a wheel ?

On 13th January 2006, 06:45 AM I posted (here):

When I look at a spreadsheet of momentary torques (1/2 degree intervals) and consider a shift sooner there's an appreciable difference in 2 radians of rotation. It amounts to an average torque of 15.9% of the total weight of the system.

Further your screen name implies that you're in search of torque.

Further if you look at the matter you'll find the idea of an imbalance of torque is addressed when considering the matter of why gravity is a conservative force and that it won't work either. There are not too many new ideas, Torque, and they get recycled whether you discover them for yourself or someone tells you about them.

And further I've even alluded to the idea on this site.

Gene

ps edit: on that same thread indicated by here I posted this direct quote on the 13th also (05:51 AM):

What I'm attempting is to drive the axis of orbiting and equal masses with the difference of force that exists between their different moments.

[ken_behrendt]

Torque Seeker...

The 3rd Law of Motion states that the sum of the forces or torques in a closed system MUST be zero. Thus, IF this law applies, one can never achieve a mechanical system that would continuously exhibit a net torque in either direction of rotation.

However, I am convinced that it might be possible to find a mechanism involving two diametrically opposed weights that would create "pulses of torque" as they swung through a certain angular interval. By then overlapping the out of phase torque pulses from several such opposed pairs of weights, it should be possible to produce a net torque that would keep the wheel in continuous rotation. The design for this should, BTW, also keep the CG of the wheel's weights on one side of the axle at all times.


ken

[John Collins]

The 3rd Law of Motion states that the sum of the forces or torques in a closed system MUST be zero.

Many will be aware that I don't regard Bessler's wheel as operating as a 'closed system' -so IMHO Ken, the third law does not apply.

John Collins

[AgingYoung]

Torque Seeker,

I noticed a design that someone had on this site that had a similar movement to that first image on the left. You can notice that the weight on the bottom is moved back to the center along a curve.

If someone makes a wheel that works and anyone would say it was similar to what they were working on then I'd have to ask why didn't they make a working wheel. If there were any merit in resetting the weight along a curve then da vinci would have figured it out. Then again he might have missed something. After all he did say the sun doesn't move.

Gene

ps edit: if you would like to know where images come from you can right click on the image (using navigator) and select 'copy image location' or 'properties'.

[Jonathan]

>Thus, IF this law applies, one can never achieve a mechanical system that would continuously exhibit a net torque in either direction of rotation.<
Unless it caused the Earth to experience an equal and opposite torque.

[AgingYoung]

Unless it caused the Earth to experience an equal and opposite torque.

If the Bessler wheel were aligned with the equator then aligned with the poles would that have changed it's ability to do work? I don't think it would have. If it were true that a wheel would cause an equal an opposite torque on the earth's axis how could you begin to measure that? It is impossible. For both those reasons I don't think it would effect the earth or that if it did it would be knowable.

Gene

[SeaWasp]

I would say the effect on the Earth would be no different to the wheels weight and it's supports acting upon it. Either rotating or not.

[ken_behrendt]

Well, Jonathan might be right. As Bessler's wheels turned, they might have created an immeasurable counter rotation in the Earth beneath them! At any instant, the sum of the torques of the gravity wheel and the Earth would equal zero and the 3rd Law of Motion would be satisfied.

IF my concept of the weights in a working gravity wheel using rest mass is correct, then that would also mean that, as the Earth counter rotated under a turning gravity wheel, the planet would have to lose the same amount of rest mass as did the weights in the gravity wheel!

I have talked in the past about how a weight falling to the Earth experiences an increase in kinetic energy because a tiny bit of its rest mass is converted into the kinetic energy displayed by the weight. However, as the weight falls to Earth, the Earth also "falls" toward the weight and must also experience a decrease in rest mass as it, too, increases its velocity.

When we finally crack the secret of Bessler's wheels, their explanation is going to make a very interesting chapter in the physics book of the future!


ken

[rlortie]

Dah!

Does this mean that all them commuters driving to work in one direction in the morning and then all in the other direction after work speed up and slow down the earths rotation.

No wonder traffic jambs seem to take so long to clear. LOL

Ralph