the clues give it away

[arthur]

Ill reword this,
I hope its ok for me to use some of your words randall:)

if a working wheel does not start turning automatically (some of its stationary positions gives a torque in the opposite direction), and it requires an initial input of energy to set the mechanism into motion,

.......then perhaps it is driven by inertia and gravity.



"When I turned it but gently, it always stood still as soon as I took my hand away. But when I gave it any tolerable degree of velocity, I was always obliged to stop it again by force; for when I let it go it acquired in two or three turns its greatest velocity, after which it revolved at twenty-five or twenty-six times a minute"
- eyewitness accounts

[rmd3]

or slowed by inertia!

[Fletcher]

I think you guys might be missing the point of what Jim is saying.

The coupled swinging/moving weight mechs [pairs of pairs] create CF's [inertia] - the swinging/moving is spring assisted to get extra velocity & KE - the inertia is used to lift/shift the mechs own CoG [inertial leverage], thus making it top heavy [or side heavy if you like] - the entire wheels CoM is the majority of the time to the down going side of the wheel - this causes an imbalance which causes the wheel to want to rotate to its keel position like any OOB wheel - before it can get there the weight mechs are unlatched & they swing/move [with spring assist] back the opposite way, shifting their CoG to the downgoing side again - ad infinitum.

In other words the wheel is an OOB wheel where the shifting force of the individual mechs CoG is provided by CF's [leveraging inertia] but the wheels CoM is side shifted most of the time.

So inertia would be the shifting force & gravity would be the overbalancing force BUT the wheel needs to be started out-of-balance to get the dynamic motion it needs to create the CF's he hopes to harness.

If one of those forces can be removed or replaced then it is not the primary force. Jim postulates he could replace the gravity component with springs therefore the inertial force is the prime mover.

There's obviously more to it about how these interactions will actually occur to allow leveraging inertia that won't cause the usual 'show stopping' back torque issues - we'll have to wait for him to finish his build before he can tell us - I can do that [he has plenty of company].

[ovyyus]

Fletcher, that's pretty much as I interpret what Jim is getting at too: Pre-loaded spring assisted weights (spinning) are accelerated across a specific trajectory which results in them attaining a latched position that is higher than their start/release point. The gain in height acquired by the weights, through energy input from the proposed assisting CF force, is used to create and maintain the OOB condition of the wheel, which in turn drives the system through to the next release/latch event. In this manner the proposed energy input which assists the weights in gaining additional swing height is the primary source of the wheel overbalance, of which gravity plays no real part. While the wheel is clearly driven by gravitational overbalance, that overbalance itself is powered by Jim's proposed inertial energy input, not by gravity. Is this about right Jim?

Actually, this general concept is quite similar to what I've been pursuing for some time now - with the exception that a thermal energy source acts in place of Jim's proposed CF energy source.

[Michael]

Not to mention Fletcher that the power to the springs would have to be reset as well.

The gain in height acquired by the weights, through energy input from the proposed assisting CF force

Since CF force can't do anything in the real world can someone explain this to me? There is a difference between a centrifuge and CF.

[jim_mich]

Fletcher had done an excellent job of understanding and summerizing what I've been trying to say.

On the other hand Ralph has no idea or understanding of what I'm talking about.

[rmd3]

arthur,
You're eye-witness quote was for a bi-directional wheel. So I presume, because it didn't turn automatically like the uni-directional wheel, that it required an extra input in energy to simple set the mechanism which determined the direction.

Fletcher,

To be sure, you did clarify the idea of inertia vs. gravity as the primary moving force for the type of mechanism and wheel idea you presented. I understand the point.

At the same time, I think my test (last page) would still be valid... Repeated with slight rewording here:

If a working wheel in any stationary position nets torque in the same direction all the time, that wheel would have to be gravity driven since rxF is the only relationship valid for a static wheel. But if a working wheel in some of its stationary positions gives a torque in the opposite direction, then there must have been an inertial impetus to overcome it.

Would that not be true?

-Randall

[winkle]

all this CF talk is starting to sound like it's coming from a preacher
perhaps it might be called the church of CF
unfortunately like most churches it seems to be about
all talk and no work

[rlortie]

Jim,

Fletcher had done an excellent job of understanding and summerizing what I've been trying to say.

On the other hand Ralph has no idea or understanding of what I'm talking about.

Oh! I know what you are talking about, other wise I would not debate you about it. I simply say that IMO it will not work. Prove me wrong!

Your assumption with the personal dig is also understood. You keep on laughing and that is the incentive to see who laughs last! And by the way "summarizing" is with an "a" not an "e".

Ralph

[John Collins]

Maybe I didn't understand your argument Jim-Mich but with Fletch and Bill's input above I understand now (at last!!!)

I tried out some ideas of a similar nature a while back but as I never described it on paper (or on a PC) I didn't label the CF forces as such, so I didn't recognise what you were describing. And Bill the same goes for your own ideas, I didn't realize you were not entirely excluding gravity while also allowing input of energy from the increase in height gained from swinging the weights through CF. I guess we were not so far apart after all so apologies to both of you for pouring scorn on your own ideas when I was working on something not too dissimilar without realizing it.

Having said that, my own efforts with CF have convinced me that it isn't the right road, or at least not the road that Bessler took. I may be wrong about it not being a feasible method of generating energy from gravity, however indirectly, but I am sticking to my own road which I believe is the one Bessler took.

John

[arthur]

yes this sounds right (at least) to me, randall;

if a working wheel in some of its stationary positions gives a torque in the opposite direction, then there must have been an inertial impetus to overcome it.

and I believe this could have been the case with the bi-directional wheel
[the witness I quoted (at the top of this page) reffered to]

since like you said it's apparent that the wheel didn't turn automatically and that it required an initial input of energy to set the mechanism into motion.

[arthur]

If a working wheel is not (at least in part) driven by gravity then the wheel could lay flat and spin on a horizontal plane instead of a vertical plane...

....right?

[arthur]

ralph wrote:

It is gravity that provides the to and fro which creates the inertia.

jim wrote:

No, it is inertia working to and fro with any force, be it gravity or springs or even leveraging against other weights that can cause a weight to move to and fro.

jim wrote:

If springs are used in place of gravity in an outer space environment and if the wheel gains its energy from swinging/motion then the wheel would still work.

...........good luck with that, jim!!!!!! hats off to the non-gravity wheel.

jim wrote:

Ralph, you go work on your gravity powered engines and I'll work on my kinetic energy powered motors.

[evgwheel]

Hi Arthur, just a quick hint which may help. If you are still the last person on the end of a post, it is easy to edit and add to that post, (edit on top RHS) and it does not say last edit. I normal state Addition. It is totally up to you if you use that option. EVG

[arthur]

super thanks