New guy, new idea?

[ozzy]

Hi there
This is my first post on this forum. Ive spent hours and hours reading threads, and I can see theres a lot of brain around here.
Ive been twisting my head on the wheel for a while too, but Im not good with math or computer-drawing. I have to build it to see that its not working.. hehe.. My english?= Im norwegian... But my last idea have been in my head for a while, and Id like to get some input on it. Ive made a rough drawing with MSpaint, so have a look and tell me what you think. ANY input is good input.
My idea is that a small weight on relatively long arm can move a bigger weight and so move the big mass closer to the axis on the ascending side, and the little weight going out, doesent make a big diff?? Numbers, kg on weights are just for describing... But a picture tells you more than 3 pages of confusing english..

[Oxygon]

I have only looked at your idea for a few minutes...

the left most lever seems to be drawn wrong...

Why does the left most smaller weight seem to be pushed thru the inner wheel? while the others seem to be resting against it...

Maybe i don't understand the drawing...

[ozzy]

my mistake. The "inner wheel" is not a wheel, but the ca-path of the big weights. Both weights are attached to the stiff "L" which is "hinged" to the rim. Hope that clarifies a bit.

[rlortie]

Ozzy

And it is that stiff "L" that is pinned to the rim that is carrying all the weight in a symmetrical pattern. It does not matter what the position of the weights may take. The hinge holds all!

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Ralph,
I've told you this before, you are very wrong! When weights are pinned to a wheel different situation act differently. The weight only exerts its force on the pin in a straight downward direction when the weight is hanging freely straight down. If the weight is swinging (wheel rotating) then CF force (inertial momentum) causes force in other directions. If the weight comes in contact with the wheel in some way (like the above weight touching the rim) then the weights will act like they are rigidly pinned and the force of the weights on the wheel changes from the pin to the center of gravity of the two weights. On the above wheel when the large weight is tilted against the rim then the CG is at one location. When the small weight is tilted against the rim then the CG is at a different location. When the weight is swinging between locations then (and only then) is the hinge "holding all" as you say. And even then any swinging of the weight will exert inertial forces other than straight down.

I know you think that pinning (hinging) weights is the wrong way to go and you seem to prefer some type of free rolling weights that don't get pinned to the wheel, but I wish you would stop pushing your erroneous concepts about pinning weights.

[rlortie]

Jim-Mich

OK! I will appease you and agree that when the weight is resting upon something the CG will change and be shared with the attaching point.

If the weight is swinging (wheel rotating) then CF force (inertial momentum) causes force in other directions.

True the swinging weight will show inertia, CF etc. But these are induced forces that must be brought about by other means. They do not maintain or create any energy output of their own. CF for example is an outward pulling force that does not pull a wheel. The extended weight does add inertia that can be recognized as kinetic energy such as found in a flywheel. But you have to have something to turn the flywheel!

Anyway I have said my piece and will be more than happy to drop the issue. Some things are better left to the discerning to figure out for themselves.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

CF for example is an outward pulling force that does not pull a wheel.

I must state this is not always true. As a weight swings about a pivot (hinge) point on a turning (or not turning) wheel, CF from the swinging weight will pull or push upon the pivot point at various angles and cause the wheel to rotate faster or slower. So CF (a form of inertial momentum) can push or pull a wheel just as gravity can.

[primemignonite]

Jim...

Yes, but CF always conserves in a closed system, no? I think Prof. Simanek says so.

The coriolis forces will always do the same; alternately slowing and then restoring the rate of rotation.

James

[KAS]

Hi Ozzy.

This is one design I can honestly say I've tried a while back - It doesn't work.

It appears a good concept on paper but was annoying in reality.

Ill explain. The problem lies with the lever at the 6 o'clock position. It will not work as your drawing. The smaller weight will not lift the larger weight at this position. The larger weight remains against the rim a little longer thus causing overbalance cancellation at this point.

Other considerations are the length of the lever supporting the smaller weight. This would need to be of a length that would also cancel any benefits of shifting the larger weight.

Don't stop trying though - Its what we live for!

Kas

[jim_mich]

Yes, but CF always conserves in a closed system, no?

Yes, that is true. Also gravity always conserves in a closed system and springs always conserves in a closed system. And inertial momentum only gains what it loses. Individually each only gains what it loses and each only loses what it gains. So do we all call it quites and go home? Or it there an illusive combination that works to rotate a wheel? Is there a combination that converts one force into another and then redirects it in such a manner at to rotate a wheel?

[ozzy]

Thanks for the comments guys.

Kas; you might have saved me for a couple of hours in the shed.

But what about a "flatter L" and shorter arm for the big weight? Would be less weight-difference but easier to lift. Or does it null out with the little weight going inward at 9`o clock?
And I dont think the lenght of the levers matter, as long as they are light and not interfering with the movement. Its all about where the mass is.
Might have to try it anyway.
I have experimented a bit, building wheels like MT 19. It doesnt work, but what I found was that as long as the weights had the same distance to the axis, it didnt move, no matter where I attatched them; with strings to the rim on one side, nothing on the other. But if I swung them out (imagine MT 19 and pull one toward you) it started moving. 2-3 cm was enough.
So I still think I have to figure out a way to move the big weight with a smaller to disturb the path....
This is onehelluva annoying thing!!! ;-)

[ken_behrendt]

Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, in essence, says that the sum of the linear and angular momenta in a closed system must always be zero. Thus, if would seem that it would be impossible for these momenta to continuously increase in a closed system as happens to the angular momentum in an accelerating overbalanced gravity wheel.

A "closed" system is one into and from which neither matter or energy can pass. Presumerably, since an overbalanced gravity wheel is not supplied with external fuel, it is a closed system and should not experience acceleration. And, NO, gravity is not a source of fuel that somehow sneaks into a gravity wheel and somehow converts it into an "open" system!

However, the 3rd Law of Motion certainly does not apply to a system which carries its own fuel supply. This is why I firmly believe that this foundational law of physics does not apply to Bessler's wheels because, in the light of 20th century physics, they DID carry their own supply of fuel!

What was it? Simple. If the revelations that occurred to Einstein in 1905 are correct, then the very mass of the weights within Bessler's wheels were the "fuel" or source of energy that they were able to output to their environments in order to perform useful work.

The secret of continuously unleashing this energy is the mechanism Bessler found that managed to chronically maintain the CG of a wheel's weights on the descending side of the wheel's axle. Once we find that mechanism, then we should be able to replicate his wheels with all of their performance parameters.


ken

[John Collins]

Sorry Ken, but I think that's rubbish. How you can possibly believe that Bessler's wheel carried it's own fuel supply completely astounds me. And to bring in Einstein as support for your cock-eyed conclusions is a slur on his good name.

Just my opinion, but then as you know, I completely disagree with your statement that

"...Presumerably, since an overbalanced gravity wheel is not supplied with external fuel, it is a closed system and should not experience acceleration. And, NO, gravity is not a source of fuel that somehow sneaks into a gravity wheel and somehow converts it into an "open" system!"

Bessler stated quite clearly and unambiguously that the source of his wheels' energy was gravity and since he built the darn thing we should assume that he knew what he was talking about. As you point out the wheel must have an external source of energy to turn and since as you also point out a 'closed system' would not run, it must have been gravity as there was no other external supply. Forget the notion that it carried its own fuel supply it's ridiculous. Forget all the other possibilities - i.e. magnets, temperature variations, electric motors, mysterious mass variations etc etc It had to be gravity alone or possibly aided and abetted by magnets. Nothing else should concern us, and even though it goes against everything we have learned and everything we understand and even if we have to re-write some of the laws of physics, then so be it. If Bessler really succeeded in building a wheel which ran unceasingly and the only source of energy available was gravity then that's what drove it.

As Gregory, I think, pointed out, gravity exercises itself continually whether causing something to fall or just holding it down onto the ground. I like to think of it as a continuous stream of energy carrying things along with it rather like a river carries boats, rocks, silt and debris along with it, unless something snags it in mid stream, then the water flows around it. Just because a boat moors itself to the bank has no appreciable impact on the strength and flow of the stream. The stream is continuous (locally) and flows despite what is carried along with it.

As some of you know, I have made a lot of progress in deciphering Bessler's coded hints and instructions and although I have not yet succeeded in duplicating his wheel, I am confident that I will before the year's end. It's just gravity - honestly!

John Collins

[LustInBlack]

John,

The three-point wheel (Time-flux capacitor ;]) is a point and draw wheel right!? ..

The coords are in the Bible references.

If you zoom that wheel, you see a bunch of points ..

I just wonder if that was intentional or if it was a printing artifact.

[John Collins]

It was just a feature of the printing process - unfortunately Bessler could not draw with enough precision using the tools of the day, to produce in a printed copy, the kind of effect you are looking for, but I understand why you ask. I too have studied this and other drawings for many years before I made any progress.

John Collins