Selling a working wheel!!!

[Bessler007]

Math can only map reality. Periodically the math and reality are precisely equal. The majority of the time the description of the map is lacking. Even lacking those details, there were enough to persuade scientists to risk capital and life to send a craft to the moon and attempt a landing.

Physicists have looked at the math maps of countless table top contraptions claiming to be orbital systems powered only by earth's gravity. Their conclusion has been a resounding, 'No way. Your map exists only in your mind. It is not a map of reality.' Even though gravity is outside the realm of the contraption it conserves the energy it develops within the contraption. That's the best case scenario. In actual reality you are going to have losses.

You might be able to do an end run around the losses and disprove the conservative nature of gravity if you could create enough energy. Physicists counter with the First Law of Thermodynamics. 'You can not create energy! No way.'

Simple machines have been around for ages. The lever and the wheel are most likely prehistoric. Lobes on a wheel are ancient. Any possible configuration of simple machines can't get around the conservative nature of gravity or the First Law. That is the case of the contemporary physicist. It's not for lack of trying. We have tried.

The only way perpetual motion has been accomplished so far is with smoke and mirrors. There are those that use the vagaries of language and have pulled some out of their backsides to occult reality making it seem as if they are the ones who understand how to accomplish this motion. In my opinion they distrust a map of their ideas because it would show where the error of their understanding is. They often stand beside mirrors depicting images whose actual form is ancient.

Archimedes never claimed to have invented the lever. He just mapped it.

In my opinion there is an actual map of the reality of an orbital system powered by gravity at a table top scale. I've seen where swinging has increased the force of torque. I've seen how I can slow up the effect of gravity. It is impossible to change the force of gravity but it is possible to alter how it forces mass.

I'm very disappointed in wm2d's ability to map reality. I wish it were a more accurate tool. If anyone were to create a contraption that would self rotate physicists would be able to map it. That map would cause a fatal blow to the First Law and the theory that gravity is a conservative force.

I'm working on that map.

[P-Motion]

I have tried getting along with mine. Unfortunately, I have two brothers that tell my father I am obligated to do what he wants.
I don't think the professor will look at the math. PM/OU does have a nasty stygma attached to it.
Myself, I think one thing Bessler figured out was to do everything in one quadrant. If you look at everyone's design's that have been willing to make some part of them known, always use more than one quadrant.
I have to admit AB's method that he is trying is unique.

Easy Peasy ! Family comes first - then maybe the wheel after main responsibilities are taken care of - at various times it has been both an obsession & then a hobby to me, & that's the way I like it.

What can I say P - you were the one who sent the math proof to the university professor [re your edited your post of a couple of days ago] so lets see if you can make the numbers stack in your favour - I'm guessing you are going to get a reply back asking for many clarifications & a list of all your assumptions before they comment on the validity & robustness of your proof ! Then it will be interesting to see if anyone wants to put their name to it without also putting a list of disclaimers with it - who knows ?

[P-Motion]

Maybe this will help to illustrate simply what I will be trying.
The 2 squares represent weights. The arms are telescoping.
In a clockwise rotation, the weight will extend in the lower right quadrant.
Gravity can do this as can inertia. When the weight needs to be kept from extending below the radius of the wheel, a ramp catches a wheel or bar attached to the weight.
The weight would continue to exert the same force on the wheel. But as the wheel rotates, the distance from the axis would be lessened.
And when the weight is below the axis, it would be in a balanced position with the opposing weight.
This is a state of conservation. A requirement to conserve momentum. 2 reasons.
1, momentum is not being converted to work to reposition it and 2, its' radius is shortened meaning it would use less energy to continue its' motion.
I think math supports it quite well.

[rlortie]

P-Mo,

IMO, your math is flawed. I do not use math, rather experience and logic and what I believe is an educated discerning eye.

What you have here is the basic ramp design that has been tried many, many times. It is my believe you have made it worse by installing the ramp inside the wheel creating less or shorter leverage/ inclined plane creating a sharper rise on the weight.

Another example of hight for width which has proved feeble in thousands of attempts.

By the way if it were to work, does your math take into consideration that the longer extended weight effected by gravity and inertia is also creating more CF by its own accelerated rate by the increase in radial path? This so called CF must be negated by the CpF (centripetal) by the ramp retainment. To many, this is called back torque!

In years past I have tried every conceivable approach to using a ramp. The designs of application may change, but the results are always the same.

The closest principle using ramps was probably achieved by a former member named Darrell V. It was large and heavy. Inertia would drive it for some time once started, but it was not self-sustaining. Others found out the hard way.

EDIT: By the way Darrell's wheel was something like 12 feet in diameter but his weights shifted less than two inches. This made for an almost balanced wheel that would spin for a long time on inertia alone.
Ralph

[P-Motion]

P-Mo,

IMO, your math is flawed. I do not use math, rather experience and logic and what I believe is an educated discerning eye.

If you wish to say math is flawed, please show where. Making vague statements does not make you right.
It could be why everyone has trouble understanding such a simple concept, lack of experience using math to calculate force.
Since designd can vary, let's say the last 15 degrees are where the weight returns to a balanced position.
Bessler has been said to use 8 arms. With one every 45 degrees, this means most of the time 2 arms will be extended.
Where is the math flawed rlortie ? I think your discerning and eye and logic have been shown to be wrong. 1 arm always extend and 2 for 300+ degrees of rotation.
And I sincerely doubt you have tried anything like this. I'd say you are jealous for not having thought of it.

[AB Hammer]

This string has formed a life of its own. And the only way this will be settled is for P-Motion to build his wheel and if it works he has the write to say I told you so, But if it dosn't work and can't be corrected then others get to say I told you so.

There is only one other way, and that is face to face and study the drawings and the math together, then build it together.

[Fletcher]

Nobody will convince you of anything P - & rightly so - as Ovyyus said recently 'believe no one' - & you clearly already do that ;)

That means there is only one avenue open to you - you have to build something that can demonstrate your basic principle to your satisfaction.

As a suggestion only, a simple pendulum should suffice - let it swing & measure its vertical start & finish height - then allow, say a telescoping mech [as you suggest] to release so that the pendulum bob extends to a greater radius - do that after release but well before 6 o'cl [probably a set trip position & mech independent of the pendulum would give consistent results] - now measure the finish height & note the difference that CoAM caused - run the experiment again but this time after release have it engage a set ramp [the idea being that it manually closes the radius again] - about 6 o'cl the pendulum should have maximum velocity & kinetic energy to climb the ramp - if the bob is able to climb the ramp to its original radius, then measure what its finishing height is again - if you are correct that you can break CoAM & overcome back torque from the ramp by opening & closing the radius then you will have a winner & you will have physical evidence to back up your math.

If you think this would be an unfair test because it involves 2 quadrants then drop your pendulum from 3 o'cl, extend it & have it engage the ramp again, all before 6 o'cl - see if it swings higher than an unencumbered pendulum for comparison [it will climb the ramp because it is still loosing PE & is on the way down !] - experiment with steep & shallow ramps to see if this helps things along any ? - you should see an increase in height achieved on the upswing, or in other words, an accumulation of Momentum [which wouldn't normally be there] for your trouble.

If neither of these ideas by your reckoning are a true & fair test of your theory then design another experiment that will take account of all you are proposing & give it a go - it's up to you to design an experimental setup that is both reliable & repeatable.

[Fletcher]

P - I built this arrangement in wheel form many years ago [just drew it up now] - you might be able to see some resemblance to your ideas - the weighted levers were horizontally mounted around the rim [8] - at 3'o'cl gravity caused the levers to open out to a greater radius - they then connected with the cam interior wheel guide - the weighted lever slid over the steel roller bars [least friction] which caused the levers to close again to the horizontal position [at least that was what I had hoped would happen].

The Cam wheel was adjustable so I could change its orientation at will to try out various positions etc.

I learnt more about 'trading height for width' with this build than any other !

EDIT: the proportions of the drawing I did are wrong [too much of a hurry] - the falling levers were at about half radius of the bigger wheel & sat inside the internal cam wheel so they could rest on the bars after deployment - also latches were used to secure the levers back in position.

[rlortie]

P-Motion,

You wrote;

And I sincerely doubt you have tried anything like this. I'd say you are jealous for not having thought of it.

I believe you will find the consensus of the senior forum members will agree with me, that this statement belongs in "off Topic" on the Joke thread! It is the funniest laugh I have had in a while.

Do some internet research before you make a total fool of yourself! Your math cannot help a court Jester become a master craftsman.

EDIT:

If you wish to say math is flawed, please show where. Making vague statements does not make you right.

I did not say "math is flawed" I said in my opinion your math is flawed. Big difference in meaning, just like your other statements.

If you do not believe I have ever built anything like your design, do a forum search for the James Kelly thread.

Ralph

[P-Motion]

Nobody will convince you of anything P - & rightly so - as Ovyyus said recently 'believe no one' - & you clearly already do that ;)

Thanks Fletch. What some people forget is that R&D exists for a reason.
And that is to help refine an idea.
Myself, I think Bessler already did this. And what he wrote was instructions if someone can follow them.
What I know I can do is make a model that can be easily modified. I can start with a small extension that would wait longer before the ramp would change the course of the weight.
Since I will be using pvc pipe, it won't be a problem to enable the arms to extend more. Then all I would need to do is change the ramps.
This will let me try different ways of doing it.
Of course, I can also use 4 arms which means one would be extended most of the time. And with about $8 per arm plus the cost of the weight, cheap test. This means I can try one counter-balanced arm and if necessary go to 2. By having a flexible design, it will take a lot of stress out of it.
Of course, what is stressful is people expecting a working model on first go. I've only had this idea about a month. So I think it is going very quickly from abstract concept to drawing board to building a prototype for testing.
It is necessary for everything to happen in one quadrant.
And I am hoping to keep it under $60.

[P-Motion]

If you built something like, then you should have a pic somewhere. Could be you got the details wrong.
Besides, I think Bessler had another trick that he didn't mention. Of course, I won't be hiding how I do it so I can avoid his complexity.
And you still have not shown where MY math is wrong.

P-Motion,

You wrote;

And I sincerely doubt you have tried anything like this. I'd say you are jealous for not having thought of it.

I believe you will find the consensus of the senior forum members will agree with me, that this statement belongs in "off Topic" on the Joke thread! It is the funniest laugh I have had in a while.

Do some internet research before you make a total fool of yourself! Your math cannot help a court Jester become a master craftsman.

EDIT:

If you wish to say math is flawed, please show where. Making vague statements does not make you right.

I did not say "math is flawed" I said in my opinion your math is flawed. Big difference in meaning, just like your other statements.

If you do not believe I have ever built anything like your design, do a forum search for the James Kelly thread.

Ralph

[P-Motion]

You want pictures, check out the achieves, albums, do a search on my past posts. You may learn something in the process.
Do some internet research before you make a total fool of yourself!
Ralph

How the hell would trying something based on math make me look like a fool ?
I'd think quitting on it to make you happy would make me look more the fool.
Then again, I might have to move to find work. If so or meeting soemone, then I'd say good by to this again.
Stopped with my own idea when a motorist could not see the road and ran me over while doing 50mph. Do have other things I consider more important than this. And to me, it really is a big headache when peopel can't cite math but say "I don't think so".
Heck, posting in Mythbusters I expected the engativity, but in here ?
It could be to simple of a concpt is why everyone is missing it. Like the old saying, simpler is betteer. And it couold be everyone over complicates it because they have to make it difficult. And that could be why everyone has failed.

[P-Motion]

rlortie, since you are an expert, I will quit wasting my time with pm/ou. it is impossible. Thank you for enlightening me.
But I don't need the headache.

Good Bye

[rlortie]

P-Motion,

And you still have not shown where MY math is wrong.

And you have yet to prove to anyone on this forum that it is right. So until you build. the proof is in the pudding.

You want pictures, check out the achieves, albums, do a search on my past posts. You may learn something in the process.

Ralph

[KAS]

P,

I, like you designed many a concept over the years and have had egg on my face on more than one occasion.
I designed one form scratch only later to discover it was exactly, and I mean exactly, the same a design posted some years earlier - before I became a member.
Whats the chances of that?

We on this forum have a habit of repeating ourselves from time to time.
especially with newer members who innocently think their Idea is new and unique.

Attempts have been tried to construct a design database to cure this problem but most are reluctant or don't have the time to post to it.

I can assure you that this type of design has been tried many times in different guises.

Offsetting a collector or pick up independently from the main wheel (other than a ramp) is IMO a worthwhile area for research.

Differences of opinion will occur from time to time but that shouldn't discourage anyone from this quest.

Keep up the good work but inquire before claim is the best approach.

Kas