Bessler's use of Gravity

[rlortie]

Other alternitives include but not limited to drawings, MT 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,124,137,

137 does not show any weights, that is because it is a mechanism that the weights are added on too. Take my word for it, their are advantages to be found in such a design.

Ralph

[rlortie]

Over the last 20 months on this forum I have been known to assist newcomers by privat post. Sort of a tutor or mentor you might say.

My prime teaching example is nothing more than a common roof truss. I explain that it holds up the roof and the ceiling. It is supported by the two outside vertical walls.

Now you can hang or sit any thing you wish on such a truss and no matter if it is offset or horizontaly suspended, the weight transference will always end up on the outside walls. A wheel is no different. Any thing attached to the wheel in a symetrical pattern (Pinned) will become part of that wheel and it will not see it as an unstationary COG.

A weight or pendulum swinging, does not move the load point, it is still carried to the point of attachment. Multiple fulcrums located around the radius of a wheel could care less about the imbalance they carry, the fulcum is attached to the wheel. Imagine two fullcrums on a horizontal plane on each side of the wheel, all it sees is the total weight carried by each fulcrum even though the fulcrum is bearing an uneven load. being attached to the wheel, they are part of the wheel, they are pinned there. now slide equal weighted levers across these fulcrums and tell me if it makes any difference in the wheels COG point. It will not! Why because the fullcrums are of equal distance to the axle.

Ken, you have been doing this for over a year now and you say you still do not understand! This is why I stated that I was not going to post much any more, I am tired of watching you suffer through the same routine day after day! I certainly am not alone in trying to get you to see this point.

Now I hope that helps some understand the term 'Pinning to the wheel"
If not let's continue the discussion.

By the way "spell check" is not working for me so excuse any mistakes.

Ralph

[rlortie]

This thread is obviouly getting me aroused. There are some good and bad points being made here.

First off the usage of the word "impossible" needs to be left outdoors when entering this forum. Replace such atitude with inovation and anything is possible.

I agree with James Kelly and have faith in Steve's comments. It is very much indeed possible to quit pinning things to a wheel. You will never see that the left side of a clockwise turning wheel can be made light if you insist on pinning things to it. A peacocks tail does not open into a circle it fans through half a circle.

Thanks to James Kelly he opened the door last night to let more inovation in without being accopanied by impossible.

Ken, it is possible build a wheel with torque capability without anything on the acsending side. I had all weight removed for 52 degrees of ascent, I now believe it possibe to make that margin better than 180 degrees!

No I am not at liberty to say how I achieved this, so please do not ask. It cam about with the help of confidential input.

Ralph

[bluesgtr44]

..You're kidding, right?


Steve

[bluesgtr44]

OUCH...didn't know that Ralph made a couple of posts about this. My last comment was meant for Ken. I just could not believe he does not see any other way....


Steve

[rlortie]

Ken,

If one has weights driving a wheel, then, at some point, they are going to have to attached to either the wheel or its rotating axle. That is, there must be some physical contact between the driving weights and the drum that contains them or no torque will be applied to the wheel.

Wrong! this is a statement of yours and is unfounded. Weights do not have to be attached to anything but themselves so that when one is out one is in. "Pairs of pairs" They are not attached to the axle or the wheel, they only apply pressure by weight to produce torque.

There is physical contact but it is no different than you and the floor you are either standing or sitting upon.

Ralph

[bluesgtr44]

Ken....

That is, there must be some physical contact between the driving weights and the drum that contains them

There is a lot of difference between contact and connection (pinned)....


Steve

[rlortie]

OUCH...didn't know that Ralph made a couple of posts about this. My last comment was meant for Ken. I just could not believe he does not see any other way....

Steve,
I logged off and made a quick trip to town. I came back to find your two above posts. You tickled my funny bone. That was good for a smile or two.

IMO Ken has had tunnel vision down the same path since he joined this forum. A number of us has taken turns in an attempt to explain the problem to him. You have tried, I have tried. Others such as Spiros and "Me" have tried, jim_mich has tried, and the list goes on.

In the mean time, Ken has succeed in building the longest tunnel without perception that I know of in research history.

As for this 4th law thingy! Once Newtons apple is hung back on the tree with less energy than it dissipated when it hit the ground, I consider it unsubstantiated. Of course me not being a math person admit that I do not understand or know the value of it anyway.

Still have problems with "SpellCheck" so live with my mistakes if any :0)

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Ralph,

I also could not understand what you were talking about when you say the "weights do not have to be attached to anything". I now see what you mean. Your weights are freely moving within the confines of the wheel, much like a ball rolling or tumbling inside a drum. The weights make contact with the wheel but aren't pinned to it. It seems to me that your weights most likely also make contact with the axle else they would settle to the bottom of the wheel drum. Of course a simple ball or cylinder rolling inside a drum will not do anything, so I must assume that the weights consist of something a little more complex than just a simple rolling weight.

As far as what happens when someone pins weights to a circle I must say that neither Ken nor Ralph are right. The answer as to what will happen depends on the details of the design. A simple pendulum type weight will only exert force in line with the pendulum rod. If the wheel is stationary the rod will hang straight down and what Ralph said will be true. If the wheel is turning and the pendulum is swinging then forces are still in line with the rod but the rod angle keeps changing so the force angle will keep changing. If the weight come in contact with a stop and is no longer able to swing then it's like the weight is pinned in its new location. This makes the weight act first like it's pinned as a pendulum then later like it's pinned to a different location.

Now if you use levers, gears or pulleys and cords along with multiple weights then things can get even more complex involving torque transmission, inertia, centrifugal forces, etc. I don't think you can say that the COG will be stationary, (if that is what I understand you to say?)

We all have our own personal ideas and concepts that we like to favor. This is good because we as a group will cover more areas. I see some paths as dead ends and not worth pursuing. At times I find it painful to watch Ken. I want to scream out, "No, no, that will never work!" but I keep quiet. I just tell myself that Ken is trying to take the "Simple" path, or maybe it could be called the "Simpleton" path.

Ralph, can you make a wheel work without any attachments of weights to the wheel? I don't know! I don't know your designs details. But now I understand more about your concepts and what you mean when you say, "not pinned to the wheel."

[rlortie]

jim_mich and all of interest,

Your first paragraph above is on the money and I thank you for the recognition. Unfortunetly I am not in a postion to elaborate. The second paragraph as quoted, IMO is worth farther discussion.

As far as what happens when someone pins weights to a circle I must say that neither Ken nor Ralph are right. The answer as to what will happen depends on the details of the design. A simple pendulum type weight will only exert force in line with the pendulum rod. If the wheel is stationary the the rod will hang straight down and what Ralph said will be true. If the wheel is turning and the pendulum is swinging then forces are still in line with the rod but the rod angle keeps changing so the force angle will keep changing. If the weight come in contact with a stop and is no longer able to swing then it's like the weight is pinned in it's new location. This makes the weight act first like it's pinned as a pendulum then later like it's pinned to a differnet location.

lets carry this paragraph a little farther. A pendulum will always hang staight down as the wheel it is attached to turns. It can be attached to a 90 degree bell-crank or any other type configuration you can dream up. The point is that all the weight no matter what the path will always end up at the point or pin it is suspended from.

True, if the pendulum is set swinging then the rod angle keeps changing and the force angle will change. BUT! where will it end up at, or what path, back to the point it is pinned on the wheel AKA attachment point. now if the swinging pendulum is caught and held in a stop then the weight is transfered betwen the stop and the pivot point which are both attached to the wheel. It is now a lever which is prying between the stop and the pivot, neither will move, any configuration you come up with will fall within the three basic classes of fulcrum and lever.

In the perspective relation to the wheel you have moved the COG but what did you use to swing the pendulum to reach the stop? Most of Kens designs call for a shifter weight which unfortunetly is pinned to the wheel and all shifter weights are equally symetricly balanced. To move a pendulum on the descending side means moving one on the ascending side as well. Now you have two levers prying on the wheel with opposite forces. The wheel does not recognize this as they are prying against pinned objects. As the old saying goes you are trying to pick yourself up with your own boot straps!

Also take note, if the pendulum is attached to the shifter weight which is also pinned, any force from the pendulum ends up back at the shifter attaching point.

Now if you use levers, gears or pulleys and cords along with multiple weights then things can get even more complex involving torque transmission, inertia, centrifugal forces, etc. I don't think you can say that the COG will be stationary, (if that is what I understand you to say?)

They get more complex but have the same problem. For every gear, pulleys and tied off cords, you have the same problem. The force of the weights are transfered to said gears and pulleys which in turn, to be of value are attached or pinned to the wheel. Here again you have simply suspended the weight to a pinned position.

Gears and pulleys can be used to move a weight, but not unlike the pendulum shifter, you need something to move it with. Multiple weights where as one is moving another will be of value as long as they are not suspend by a pulley which is attached to the wheel (pinned) as it in turn will be suspending the combined weight.

IMO CF can be used to throw a weight out to the rim, but if that weight is attached to a lever or rope, no matter the length the force still ends up at the attaching point. The weight must rest on something which is attached to the wheel


Scott, my spell check is not working!

Ralph

[Michael]

now if the swinging pendulum is caught and held in a stop then the weight is transfered betwen the stop and the pivot point which are both attached to the wheel. It is now a lever which is prying between the stop and the pivot, neither will move, any configuration you come up with will fall within the three basic classes of fulcrum and lever.

Ralph don't think stop then think lock. What Jim is saying is if the weight locks at a new position that's where the mass of the weight is not at the pin.

[rlortie]

Michael,

Appriciate the input, and yes I was referring to "Latch" or stop as that is the word Jim used. My point being, where the latch retains the pendulum either by the bob or rod that is where the fulcrum point will be in relation to the rod pivot point. The closer to the end of the bob the latch grabs, the more weight transference is will hold, relieving the pivot point.

IMO this is all irrelevent until a force to get the pendulum to the latch is found first that does not require a pinned attachment to the wheel.

Ralph

[rlortie]

To make my point, here is a picture of a design that a member sent me. He claims that he tried posting it on the board so I feel that it is alright to do so.

He is requesting help from WM2D users. Ken please give it a once over.

Will this work or not, what input can you give me regarding such a design.

Ralph

[Patrick]

No.
Experienced PM researchers should be able to look at such a model and instantly see (and understand why) it will not work. "Shifting mass" concepts should be clearly understood to save wasting valuable time.
--patrick

[jim_mich]

Ralph, I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what you're trying to say. You seem to be trying to prove that weights must be disconnected and not pinned to the wheel for it to have any chance of working. I really strongly feel that this is not true.