Overbalanced wheels, a waste of time ?

[Wheeler]

Lighter weight can not shift a heavy wt, without leverage or recoil.
Heavy weight can not shift a light weight either.
You must have an outside force to make either one work.

[pstroud]

Roberts stated:

Except I don't believe any more in shifting/moving weights.
Any time a weight shifts on an arm or anything else. the wheel everything is mounted on, kicks back out from under it in the opposite direction, and absorbs any force the moving weights create. This is what we're all doing wrong.
This is what Bessler said he could see he was doing wrong, I bet.

Robert, I've been thinking about this for a few weeks now and I actually have a post-it note on my desk saying: "Try redistributing the weight's pressure points without physically moving it much."....

IMO, it is possible to slightly move levers attached to a weight in the middle of them to adjust their pressure point on the wheel, without really moving the weight but an inch...

Is this similar to the concept that you are referring to?

Preston.

[rks1878]

Preston,

Yes.
I've tried what you suggest, for the last year. Even moving the pivot point to the other side of the axle (the arm must then pass over the center) has the same negative effect.

The lever arm is like kid's leg pushing the ground to make his scooter go, only here the ground is the wheel, and it (the wheel), will always"give way" and get you nowhere.

I think anyone who has actually tried to build one of these things will agree.

I have mixed emotions about realizing this lever arm dilemma at last. Sorry to have wasted so much time on it, but then, happiness that this was a major thing to learn and to program my subconscience with. This is a whole broad swath of attempts that won't have to be tried again and I have a feeling of peace and relief.

Bessler did it some other mechanical way. I have no idea what it could have been.

I think all the racket his wheels made was his way of concealing his idea.

It was probably something almost insanely simple, and silent running.

robert

[Michael]

Robert;
1. I can't download your file, I tried and nothing came up.

2. If we are talking about generality's on whether all over balanced wheels won't work becuae of what you said, well that's just not correct. Unless I am misunderstanding you. Take the typical rolling marble wheel as an example, and only an example of this.

3. Why do people believe that Bessler had something real yet won't believe things he himslef said about his perpetual motion wheel? Do you believe him when he said if it's not real he'll put his head on the block? There are things he said as poetic code and things he said that weren't code, that were generality's that he no doubt thought he was safe in saying. He did say that the noise was a real result of the working mechanism inside, why wouldn't you believe this? You can seek some advice from Bill about this Bessler even said he tried to mute the bang.

[AgingYoung]

Robert,

I've made mechanisms that have a significant difference in torque between 90° (3 o'clock) and 270° (9 o'clock). That difference though comes with an expense. After paying the expense there's not sufficient force to cause the wheel to continue to move.

I think what you're referring to is counter torque. The expense I think I'm paying is in time. Most mechanisms that I've looked at (that are gravity shifted) don't shift fast enough thereby spending more time in moments where they take away from positive torque and don't spend enough time in moments where they can increase positive torque.

So far Newton wins every time either by counter torque or with time. Time is one of the factors of rate (time & distance) and a change in rate is one of the factors in Force (acceleration & mass). If you can accelerate a mass in the wheel away from another mass faster than the acceleration of (relative to the acceleration) gravity (in the moment) yet not have that acceleration pay in the form of counter torque you might have a solution.

I've considered two methods to achieve this acceleration that I believe is necessary. One is electronic and the other is mechanical. I've prototyped several electronic ideas and they take me quite a bit of time to do. I'm pretty slow. What I'm currently looking at is a mechanical accelerator that I think causes minimal counter torques.

There is some idea that can cause a wheel to turn. I think the idea of shifting the center of mass is too ambiguous. If you were able to have free energy to place a mass on a wheel where ever you wanted (for a degree or two) then take it off there are two places you could put it on the descending side that would have identical torques. Drastically different centers of mass would have the same effect. I think that's where the ambiguity is.

I think idea the of masses accelerating to each other and away from each other at what may seem very unrealistic velocities is the key to making a wheel turn. For sometime that's what I've been attempting to model.

Gene

[Techstuf]

If Bessler were alive today, he might inform us that sometimes the Center of Attention is the best place to take momentary respite from the gravity of a Given situation.

In the real world however, as we all know, there is no place On Earth to hide from gravity.



TS

[ken_behrendt]

I think that Bessler's secret mechanism consisted of two weights of equal masses that were mounted on levers with fixed pivots. At about the 3:00 position, one of the weights, which I refer to as a "shifter" weight, would force the other weight, which I refer to as a "drive" weight, to move away from the wheel's axle and, in the process, a spring would be stretched.

Then, around the 6:00 position, the orientation of the mechanism would have rotated CW through 90° and, in this new orientation at the bottom of the wheel, the spring would be able to restore both weights back to their starting positions and against their stops.

The mechanism was very simple. So simple, that Bessler actually worried that the person who finally paid him the 100,000 thalers he demanded for it would feel like he had been grossly overcharged for the secret.

Now that we know where to look, I think the "general" solution will be obtained this year.

Keep the faith...


ken

[Techstuf]

Ken, thanks for Having Been so Frank In expressing your view. H is for Hope.... For it rides again! Your stubborn sense of positivity is to be Revered.


As our world faces many a threat to it's future.....during this, it's Valley of decision......


Those that remain with backbones intact, Opt to Forge ahead.



TS

[rks1878]

Robert;
1. I can't download your file, I tried and nothing came up.

2. If we are talking about generality's on whether all over balanced wheels won't work becuae of what you said, well that's just not correct. Unless I am misunderstanding you. Take the typical rolling marble wheel as an example, and only an example of this.

3. Why do people believe that Bessler had something real yet won't believe things he himslef said about his perpetual motion wheel? Do you believe him when he said if it's not real he'll put his head on the block? There are things he said as poetic code and things he said that weren't code, that were generality's that he no doubt thought he was safe in saying. He did say that the noise was a real result of the working mechanism inside, why wouldn't you believe this? You can seek some advice from Bill about this Bessler even said he tried to mute the bang.

Michael:

1. Call Scott, or you may have an old version of the .pdf reader.

2. Don't understand.

3. He said heads could roll if his wheel was not genuine, not the racket inside it. I think he was deceptive in protecting his idea. Yes I know about the felt he said he had in one wheel. I think he messed up on that one. The mechanism is very quiet, and he added noise later. I believe this from what I've learned about shifting/moving weights. It's a dead end.
Gene,

Yes I'm talking about counter torque. But, I hope your idea works.


I feel peace and calm now that I've learned that shifting/moving weights was not how Bessler did it. It is impossible to lift more weight above the horizon on one side than falls on the other side of the axle.
This is a whole realm I don't have to waste time on any more.

Bessler used a very novel way to create the imbalance. I haven't a clue....

I posted a .pdf of the wheel which requires the toothpick worth of force over on the other thread where it belongs.

robert

[jim_mich]

Robert,

I also could not see your pdf file because I have an older version of Adobe Acrobat Reader. Why not post a gif or jpeg picture file that all can see?

[rks1878]

Jim,

I supose this is just a nice way of telling me you are not interested in it, since updating the reader yourself, is easier than me doing the drill of making a gif and posting it.

Thank you for your sincerety.

robert

[bluesgtr44]

Rob...not at all what I envisioned it to look like. I am trying to get myself out of the existing train of thought....it is just that it becomes so embedded, we do things without even realizing we are repeating the same mistake in just a different way. I think one of these is "compensation", if we can just compensate for the effect of CF and AM...it will surely spin...I see a lot of that and it apparently does not work...in and of itself as it has been a failure.


Steve

[rlortie]

Ken,

You wrote:

I think that Bessler's secret mechanism consisted of two weights of equal masses that were mounted on levers with fixed pivots. At about the 3:00 position, one of the weights, which I refer to as a "shifter" weight, would force the other weight, which I refer to as a "drive" weight, to move away from the wheel's axle and, in the process, a spring would be stretched.

If one thinks about it,you can design paired weights on a lever that has no pivot point. I have yet to understand why everyone seems to think that they need fixed pivots or pins. As Bessler states they change positions on each side of the wheel, the ascending is always the shifter connected to the driver.

No matter where you pivot from on the wheel, that pivot action is carried to the wheel axis which will always read a balanced status. The only way to negate this is let the axis become the pivot, or have no pivot period.

Robert's example of a man pushing on a door while having a rug pulled out from underneath him is a good example. What he did not include Is the man pulling on the other side,standing on the same rug.

Ralph

[bluesgtr44]

I agree, Ralph...if the fixed point is beyond the axis...you are going to have a problem. Now, if Ken could just moooooovvvvveeee a little....and start thinking about how they could be interconnected....he may start seeing something in the way of real movement....but, as long as the only interconnectedness he sees is connected to a fixed point, outside of the main axis....it most probably...will not spin.


Steve

[rlortie]

Steve,

Below is my latest concept and toy that I am now playing with. It does have fixed pivot points. Difference being is that the weights acting in pairs are not connected to them. Only one lever (as Bessler claimed) will immediately show the potential in this design. Mine made 10 complete revolutions after a moderate push.

I am not talking WM2D here, this is for real!

I would like to think that I have discovered part of Bessler's secret. One weight falling while lifting another is balanced force with only friction loss. This transference of balance weights is not or does not effect the wheels rotation. The wheel is not expected to lift a weight as this is done by the weights inside the wheel.

Ralph