My Original Idea

[P-Motion]

This is an idea of mine that I spent the 90's working on.
I gave it up when I was in a severe accident.
The idea is if an arm can retard its' motion, then the next weight will have greater potential than the top weight.
If it can be retarded 30 degrees, then the next weight would have a 2:1 force ratio with the top weight. And then when the wheel spins at (as an example) 20 degrees from being parallel to the ground, the weight that was at rest would move forward by gravity. It would be able to rotate downward at 30 degrees so it would advance while the wheel spins in the same direction.
Also, when the "down" weight is at rest, it creates an axis for the body to spin on. This requires that the outter lower edge be modified to allow for the wheel to spin without the outside edge touching the ground until desired.
Even if it retarded less than 30 degrees, it may be possible that it can retard enough to let the next weight increase the rate of spin.
This is basically an advanced design because the math functions on different levels simultaneously.

[Bessler007]

PM,

The third theme of ideas I explored were near horizontal wheels. The idea I actually modeled caused the mass to lead the rotation causing the axis to move in a conical manner. I attempted to use the mass to sling itself around. lol.

I don't have any pictures of that idea. I do however still have the model.

[P-Motion]

I'll try explaing some of the behavior.
When an arm becomes the axis of rotation, the wheels' outside edge is not in contact with a surface.
This allows the wheel to move quicker. Not because of an imbalance between the other 2 arms, but because the arm rotates at 30 degrees on its' axis.
Then when the outer edge of the wheel comes into contact with the surface, the imbalance between the other 2 arms continues to allow mometum to be generated while the axial positition of the previously static weight is lifted.
When this happens, that weight will pursue a balance of position ebcause the if the wheel rotates ona 20 degree plane and the arm rotates on a 30 degree axis. it will always be in a position to advance unless it is static on the surface.
This way, while balance is being pursued, momentum is being generated. A requirement of pm unless work is always being accomplished.

[P-Motion]

007,
one thing I have found out about converting gravity to work is that a multi-axial system is required. Anything that functions on a single axis/axle can not generate force over what its' static mass is.
By using a secondary axis/axle, a wheel/arm can do more work than its' static mass allows for.
An example of this is that a wheel rotating at a 15 degree angle will travel a greater distance. This increases its' potential above if it travelled on its' course with a single axis/axle.
Debbies idea could work because when the balls move, they are creating multiple axis.
But to advance or retard a weight relative to the same axis is doing nothing. And simply put, if gravity is not doing the work, then the momentum generated will be doing it. And then the idea will fail.
Its' an either, or type of proposition.

PM,

The third theme of ideas I explored were near horizontal wheels. The idea I actually modeled caused the mass to lead the rotation causing the axis to move in a conical manner. I attempted to use the mass to sling itself around. lol.

I don't have any pictures of that idea. I do however still have the model.

[Bessler007]

Hello Jim,

If there is only one point of rotation in a wheel that would be the main axle. If the wheel were unbalanced or well balanced from the start it would continue that way. It's obvious that to move mass from balance to imbalance you need at least a 2nd axis of rotation or its mechanical equivalent.

I agree with this obvious fact. :)

one thing I have found out about converting gravity to work is that a multi-axial system is required.

Deb's wheel has too much mass in motion or energy that isn't leveraged to the main axis of rotation. Again it's obvious there need to be multiple rotations. That sort of design wastes too much energy, imo. I wouldn't mind being proved wrong.

Debbies idea could work because when the balls move, they are creating multiple axis.

[rlortie]

Some where in the achieves of this forum is a design that the above vertical tipped axle reminded me of.

As I recall a circle is laid out in lets say eight pie shaped sections. Then a cut is made on one side of one section. another pie shaped piece is added. Now two sections must fold together to fill the space of one. If the raised two are forced flat the next two must fold toward each other.

You always have the weight of two filling the space of one creating a rippling OOB effect. does anyone remember this and what it was called or who presented it.

Ralph

[Bessler007]

Gill Simo

[evgwheel]

ralph
Were you referring to this http://www.besslerwheel.com/gill/11.9.03/index.html
EVG

[rlortie]

EVG, 007,

Thank you! this is exactly the one I was looking for.
Got it and the rest of the collection now book marked.

Ralph

[P-Motion]

Some where in the achieves of this forum is a design that the above vertical tipped axle reminded me of.

As I recall a circle is laid out in lets say eight pie shaped sections. Then a cut is made on one side of one section. another pie shaped piece is added. Now two sections must fold together to fill the space of one. If the raised two are forced flat the next two must fold toward each other.

You always have the weight of two filling the space of one creating a rippling OOB effect. does anyone remember this and what it was called or who presented it.

Ralph

How do you get that from an arms' motion being retarded ? This once again demonstrates your inability to consider a design based on its' description.
Pretty much think that is why I really have nothing to discuss with you Ralph. And would prefer you not discuss my designs.

[rlortie]

P-motion,

Being on my "ignore" list, I was not aware of the below quote until it was brought to my attention by a third party. The design depicted at the start of this thread was posted before our indifference.

How do you get that from an arms' motion being retarded ? This once again demonstrates your inability to consider a design based on its' description.
Pretty much think that is why I really have nothing to discuss with you Ralph. And would prefer you not discuss my designs.

Another fine example of your self-ego and conceited attitude. Your design may have prompted me to recall a previous, It has nothing to do with considering your design. It was considered when you first posted it. sorry but this forum(speaking for myself) does not revolve around you or your designs!

I am no longer discussing your designs since my last post to Steve . You are still and shall remain on my ignore list. You need not respond any farther you have already shown me for what your worth and I no longer will consider the source, I believe that by now all members that have respect for me and I for them understand your childish attitude. There is no longer a need for me to come to defense of my own integrity.

Edit: Farther more, I will discuss about any design made public on this forum until the day I either leave it or I am banned! You do not have to worry as I will not see any of yours.

Will Rogers once said: "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."

Ralph

[P-Motion]

That is my point Ralph. Someone posts a design and you were changing the discussion to a different design.
Why is it that if I post a design, the better subject is a design you remember that did not work ?
I do believe you are jealous of me. My work is supported by mathematics. And yes, in engineering that is important. Kind of strange that an engineer would go away from that.
I do plan on demonstarting my principle. It allows for auto-dynamic behavior. And that is what perpetual motion is. I would say that what I have found is a new principle in Engineering. And oncce demonstrated, everyone one in here will be talking about it because it will show where the engineer leaves the math behind, it is not for a good reason.
And no, I am not in a hole. I am on a mountain. It is not always easy to tell somewhat what the view looks like.
But as has been said, Rome wasn't built in a day.
Of course, my brother Harold always said that if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with b.s.

[P-Motion]

Bessler,
This is where trig comes into play.
If you take a wheel and have 3 arms at 120 degrees between them, check out thse numbers.
If the arm that is down is moved 20 degrees (either way, doesn't matter), how does this change the relationship between the other 2 ?
Here is a trig table. http://www.industrialpress.com/en/tabid/63/default.aspx
You see, only one arm is down at a time. This allows for one of the "up" arms to leverage the other one.
By looking at a basic relationship like this, is where to begin to understand the math I have used.
It is basically incorporating a secondary axis in a wheel.

PM,

The third theme of ideas I explored were near horizontal wheels. The idea I actually modeled caused the mass to lead the rotation causing the axis to move in a conical manner. I attempted to use the mass to sling itself around. lol.

I don't have any pictures of that idea. I do however still have the model.

[P-Motion]

To let y'all know, my ideas are based on math. Where force can be generated, it can be shown. And how it can be converted to momentum while conserving momentum can be shown.
But since my ideas are based on math, it does require some understanding of the math to understand the principle.
To have spent 10 years or more applying engineering behavior to this idea does not make me a newbie. Sorry.
But myself, I do think it is as one person posted, do you guys really want a working wheel ?
I don't think so. This is why math is the first thing to be over looked.
It is just like this idea, a basic knowledge of trig and how it applies to the different arms is important.
Even in understanding the basic math, it shows where potential exists.
After this, then engineering is necessary to realize that potential if it can be engineered. I like the second part best because then a more hands approach is needed.
But then, to learn a concept in math that does allow for this type of behavior does take time.

[P-Motion]

Here is the math that the idea is based on.
The arms when in the "down" position creates a 2nd axis.
The primary axis is from the shaft underneath the disc to the discs outside edge.
By allowing for an arm to retard its' position by 15 degrees, they go from a balanced position (state of conservation) to an unbalanced position.
The new relationships would be, the right arm would be 105 degrees (15 degrees past 90), and the left arm would be 135 degrees (45 degrees from 90).
And at 90 degrees is along the line that the disc would be tilting.
The weight in the top left position would have 70.7% of it's relative mass.
The weight in the top right would have 96.6% of its' relative mass.
This would allow the top right weight to leverage the top left weight.
Where momentum has the potential to be developed.