Bessler's use of Gravity

[james kelly]

Iwould like to say something for KEN B. and a few others. Please describe for us the situation where a unit can throw a weight through the rim of itself, if it is not runable.

[Michael]

I would like to say something for James Kelley. If you know this to be true then why not make it out of better and safer materials?

By the way Grim also said he had made a mechanism that got a few turns and then self destroyed a few years ago. He even posted pictures of it up here. Grim never made a continuous working model from his claim.

[cw]

Iwould like to say something for KEN B. and a few others. Please describe for us the situation where a unit can throw a weight through the rim of itself, if it is not runable.

James K., come on. Just because something can throw a weight and break itself doesn't prove that it is "runable".

[ken_behrendt]

James Kelly wrote:

It runs fine KEN, that until it decides to break something. After all it is only wood. Wood can not handle the power that is available.

and:

Mine Here, which is ours. has turned as many as 6 turns, before it broke something.

and:

Iwould like to say something for KEN B. and a few others. Please describe for us the situation where a unit can throw a weight through the rim of itself, if it is not runable.

Just because you got 6 full rotations out of your wheel before it became disabled due to a loss of structural integrity does not mean that the design would have been capable of continuous rotation if the breakage had not occurred.

I have had several wheels in the past that did, upon startup, manage to make several full rotations before they quit.

In nearly all cases, I discovered that my wheels (all of which were nearly perfectly balanced) had merely been running off of an initial kick that they received from a dropping weight upon startup. As soon that extra bit of energy was dissipated by air resistance and bearing friction, the wheels became inert.

I did, however, have one design that I think was doing the same thing as the one you have that threw its weight.

In that bygone wheel, as the rotational speed picked up during the first rotation, two of the attachments of the weights to the wheel began to come loose and allowed the weights to change position within the wheel in a way that they were not supposed to do. With each rotation, this unexpected effect caused two of the wheel's weights to drop a bit farther!

Thus, with each rotation, the CG of all of the weights was dropping a bit with respect to the wheel's axle and the loss of gravitational potential energy caused by this then yielded extra kinetic energy that kept the wheel turning. Come to think about it, I think it made about 7 or 8 complete rotations before one of the weights cut loose completely and brought the wheel to a quick oscillating stop. I suspect that this is probably what is happening in your wheel that threw its weight.

The wheel that I had that did this was only 3 feet in diameter and used 1 lb weights. If it had been 6 or 7 feet in diameter and using weights of tens of pounds, then the CF present would have been much higher and, possibly, it might have thrown a weight that would have caused further damage.


Anyway, I do hope that you can resolve the problems with your current design and will be able to soon report that it is definitely running continuously.


ken

[james kelly]

I am sure that we will solve this problem. You need to understand that the amount of weight invoved is very high statically. This would prevent any coasting. we are working with actual builds, not working model.

[jim_mich]

You need to understand that the amount of weight invoved is very high statically. This would prevent any coasting.

This is not true! With more weight you get more momentum to keep a wheel coasting longer.

Many wheel designs start with an out of balanced condition which initially starts the wheel to rotating. After a wheel has "cycled" at least once then it will either slow down as friction consumes energy or if it's really working it will continue to rotate and maybe speed up. The only real true test is to put a load on the wheel and determine if any energy is being produced. If the wheel can maintain a set speed while under a load (as Bessler's did) then it's a true perpetual motion gravity engine. Anything less is just wishful thinking.

The load can be as simple using a thick leather work glove and intermittently pressing your hand onto any smooth rotating wheel surface to slow it down and see if it speeds back up.

[Wheeler]

Jim
That is the kind of clear science we enjoy.
As you pointed out a heavy flywheel will slow to a stop, but a wheel with less weight has no momentum and will slow down faster than the same size.
James knows this from his experience in racing.
He must of not checked his post before sending.

[Bessler007]

So I bet $100 on a flywheel? I'll have a mulligan please.

☯

[james kelly]

If I am not mistaken I think that I heard a Christmas turkey say some thing. If you have a perfectly balanced wheel and put 40 t0 50 lbs in one spot on that wheel, will the said wheel run for a longer period of time?

[jim_mich]

If you have a perfectly balanced wheel and put 40 t0 50 lbs in one spot on that wheel, will the said wheel run for a longer period of time?

Yes! It will have more inertial momentum.

Maybe I can put it into terms that your feeble brain can understand. If you put extra pasengers into a car and accelerated to a given speed and let the car coast then it will coast for a longer period of time.

[james kelly]

This must be where I went wrong. I always built my cars as light as I could And my wheels using as much weight as I could. Boy! did I screw up!

[jim_mich]

No, you did it right. A moving object that takes a longer time to slow down also takes a longer time to speed up. You want a race car to speed up quickly so you build it as light as you can. But if you also need a certain car weight to meet racing rules or for stability on the track then add it down low on the wheels.

[John Collins]

I am mystified at the determination to build wheels as large as possible with as heavy weights as possible. You can prove a design with a small wheel and more manageable weights. I use a three foot back-plate (wheel) to attach everything and my weights are variously between 4 ounces and two pounds. As for achieving four or six revolutions, there is one unarguable test; does the wheel accelerate from a standstill? Bessler's did and achieved full speed in two or three turns.

In the time that it takes to build one enormous wheel, I have built, tested and moved on to about four or five variations. To answer your question Ken, I haven't finished a successful wheel yet, but I am working on the variables of a concept which I believe will prove correct. As promised I will post details once I succeed - or fail.

John Collins

[1712]

Failure will always be 3 days out. There will be no end to the failure. Look into my eyes..the acrobats will always jump to just within reach...next time, next time.

LOL.

War Hammer

[John Collins]

There is truth in what you say 1712, but I've been there too often to fool myself, so if it doesn't work and I have tried all the variations that seem sensible and they still don't work, then I'll publish.

John Collins