My Original Idea

[bluesgtr44]

Here is the math that the idea is based on.

One more time...please help me understand....this thing is going to accelerate. I see absolutely nothing from you displaying this obvious phenomenon. I have no idea why you ignore my questions! If you say you have the math....show me the math!

Jim, I know trig....maybe not as good as you, but....this is not about "just trig"....it is going to accelerate and there are some other things that have to be factored in. Show me the math...not just a moment in time....what is the max RPM for a wheel of "?" diameter with "X" amount of weights applied at "?" diameter from the axle at "X" o'clock position to apply "?!?" amount of force.....whew! So, just what the hell are you talking about! I'm not an idiot....back off guys, back off! ;-)...lmao


Steve

[rlortie]

Steve,

If I back off any farther I will have to unplug my computer.:o) I do not even know what you are replying to as I have placed you know who on my ignore list. I hope by doing so it will help give him a chance to answer your questions.

Ralph

[P-Motion]

Here is the math that the idea is based on.

One more time...please help me understand....this thing is going to accelerate. I see absolutely nothing from you displaying this obvious phenomenon. I have no idea why you ignore my questions! If you say you have the math....show me the math!

Jim, I know trig....maybe not as good as you, but....this is not about "just trig"....it is going to accelerate and there are some other things that have to be factored in. Show me the math...not just a moment in time....what is the max RPM for a wheel of "?" diameter with "X" amount of weights applied at "?" diameter from the axle at "X" o'clock position to apply "?!?" amount of force.....whew! So, just what the hell are you talking about! I'm not an idiot....back off guys, back off! ;-)...lmao


Steve

Are you Ralph's toadie ? I don't see where you make sense.
I would've thought that if you were actually interested in perpetual motion, you might have asked, how will momentum be conserved ? You did not ask that. Or how would torque be converted into momentum/spin ?
Again, a couple of questions soemone who has an actual interest in pm/ou would've asked.
But it does seem you have other concerns.

[ovyyus]

Just another useless troll.

[bluesgtr44]

But it does seem you have other concerns.

Yes I do, Jim.....yes I do....


Steve

[Gregory]

...how will momentum be conserved ?

P-motion,

Perhaps I am the dumb, but I don't get it. What are you talking about?
Momentum is always conserved, we do not have to conserve it, as physical reality do it very well in every case...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... tml#conmom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

Or are you talking about retaining the power of free movement of objects?


Anyhow, mathematics won't get you to the answer.

Solving this problem is mainly a physical / scientific riddle, and not a mathematical or engineering one. We already have more knowledge in mathematics than the amount we can correlate & understand correctly. Also, we can perform any kind of engineering tasks, and can build any kind of complicated or ingenious machines we want... There are almost no limits in engineering.

It just never show you where the energy comes from to operate the machine... and never gives you more energy than you already have.

Solving Bessler's wheel is a physical / scientific problem, and asks for a new physical / scientific discovery (or correction/completion) at least.

Just think about, if it would be a mathematical or engineering problem, it would haven already been solved! There are mathematicians & engineers around the world much more clever than all of us together here on besslerwheel.com


Otherwise, mathematics has its great place as usual:

Once a principle will be found, then mathematics will be the tool, which can be used to improve the efficiency & power of the machine, and optimize the operations.

[P-Motion]

It just never show you where the energy comes from to operate the machine

Gregory,
It does. The imbalnce that can occur between the 2 "up" arms.
If 1kg. is at the end of each arm, one has 70% potential kinetic and the other arm has 96% potential kinetic.
In simple terms, if 2 people are on a teeter-totter and one weighs 70 kg's and the other person weighs 96 kg's, we know what will happen.
This design is not about how fast it can spin. It is about demonstrating a principle.
The reason most designs fail is that momentum needs to be converted to work to move the out of balance weight. This is where Conservation of Momentum does not happen.

[P-Motion]

Just another useless troll.

And yet, if you consider the design, as the disc rotates, the arm out of balance will be lifted.
When this happens, gravity will move it back into a balanced position.
And this is how momentum would be conserved. The momentum from the wheel would not be used to restore it to a balanced position.
And in a balanced position, the wheel uses a minimum amount of energy.

[Stewart]

Hi P-Motion

I have to admit that I've pretty much been ignoring your posts since your rather rude and arrogant entrance on this forum. You'll generally find that the members of this forum would bend over backwards to welcome and help a newcomer, but unfortunately your attitude has caused most people to just ignore you. We once had another member with an ego the size of a planet, and despite our best efforts to accommodate it, it just didn't work and he decided to leave. I'm hoping that you can be a bit less arrogant when dealing with us so that we might be able to have some decent discussion.

I think it would also be helpful if you could try and describe/draw how you think a machine might look/work based on your math theory, as I think most people, myself included, are still trying to grasp exactly what you're suggesting. Despite what you seem to think, most of us here are able to do simple maths - I use trigonometry quite a lot and particularly while designing and building wheels. However, most of us like to analyse a complete design for a wheel and I'm not sure if you've actually presented one to us yet. You're certainly not the first person to think of overbalancing a wheel by moving weights angularly around a wheel, instead of in and out. I've played with this concept on a number of occasions, and still have some designs in the pipeline that use this principle. My main inspiration for these ideas was of course Bessler and various images from MT. You can bet that if you think you have a new idea, Bessler thought of it first! ;-) MT24 & 25 have already been discussed, but 133 & 134 are also interesting with regards to this principle. I've attached a photo of a partial build of a wheel design based on MT134 just to show I'm not all talk and actually do hands-on experimenting too. I can't divulge too much about these designs as I work with someone else, and some aspects of them are still part of our current research.

I don't think this principle of overbalance has been discussed much on the forum, which is why I thought it was interesting to see you talk about it. However, I may have completely misunderstood what you are suggesting, and in which case I apologise and hope that you might be able to explain further.

Anyway, I'm hoping you just got off on the wrong foot here, and I'm sure if change your attitude that people will give you a second chance. Good luck with your research.

All the best
Stewart

[P-Motion]

Stewart,
Could be a misunderstanding also. But then, if I did not support what I have learned in math, why should anyone else care ?
I'm not sure what you mean by a complete design. If I showed all the details, then most likely people would have more difficulty in understanding the principle.
As it is, I think having an axis that can rotate is something people are not used to.
It took me about 5 years of studying math and 10 years of studying designs to understand this.
I am not sure how I can get someone to understand it in a few posts.
I have done a couple of builds in the past. They were primarily tools for understanding mass displacement. They helped in the development of this idea.
With this design, it would almost require a machine shop to build it to maintain tolerances.

[P-Motion]

...how will momentum be conserved ?

P-motion,

Perhaps I am the dumb, but I don't get it. What are you talking about?
Momentum is always conserved, we do not have to conserve it, as physical reality do it very well in every case...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... tml#conmom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

Or are you talking about retaining the power of free movement of objects?


Anyhow, mathematics won't get you to the answer.

Solving this problem is mainly a physical / scientific riddle, and not a mathematical or engineering one. We already have more knowledge in mathematics than the amount we can correlate & understand correctly. Also, we can perform any kind of engineering tasks, and can build any kind of complicated or ingenious machines we want... There are almost no limits in engineering.

It just never show you where the energy comes from to operate the machine... and never gives you more energy than you already have.

Solving Bessler's wheel is a physical / scientific problem, and asks for a new physical / scientific discovery (or correction/completion) at least.

Just think about, if it would be a mathematical or engineering problem, it would haven already been solved! There are mathematicians & engineers around the world much more clever than all of us together here on besslerwheel.com


Otherwise, mathematics has its great place as usual:

Once a principle will be found, then mathematics will be the tool, which can be used to improve the efficiency & power of the machine, and optimize the operations.

Gregory,
The classic example they use for Conservation of Momentum is an ice skater that spins.
But just as when a child is on a swing, movements of the body can enhance the motion. And I do believe this is true of the figure skater.
The main reason why it is believed that a wheel concept can not work is the belief that it must violate the law, Conservation of Momentum.
And in a wheel concept, what is a position of Conservation ? Myself, I would believe it is when the wheel is balanced.
It is true that it will require more energy to move a weight PiRx2 than if it were x1.
It is also true that if a weight falls for 2 seconds instead of 1, it will have twice the velocity.
The reason cited in an over-balanced wheel is that when a weight is extended or dropped, it must be moved back to its' original position.
And this requires the wheel to expend the momentum generated from it being over-balanced into work to move the weight back into its' original position. And this cancels out any momentum generated.
And this is where my design has possibly solved that dilema. It allows gravity to move the out of balance weight back into position.
But to understand all the dynamics that come into play would take time to understand.

[P-Motion]

Here is the math that the idea is based on.

One more time...please help me understand....this thing is going to accelerate. I see absolutely nothing from you displaying this obvious phenomenon. I have no idea why you ignore my questions! If you say you have the math....show me the math!

Jim, I know trig....maybe not as good as you, but....this is not about "just trig"....it is going to accelerate and there are some other things that have to be factored in. Show me the math...not just a moment in time....what is the max RPM for a wheel of "?" diameter with "X" amount of weights applied at "?" diameter from the axle at "X" o'clock position to apply "?!?" amount of force.....whew! So, just what the hell are you talking about! I'm not an idiot....back off guys, back off! ;-)...lmao


Steve

Steve,
I guess what hurts me is being originally from Dayton, Ohio.
Could you imagine someone who sells you a bicycle telling you that if this observation they made about birds is used and if soemone builds them a more powerful engine, their plane would fly.
I guess they sold a lot of bicycles. They got the engine built.
But today as then, the word was as it is now, get real.
Yet many poeple should have done it before them.
They didn't.
But as Ralph likes metaphors, when on an island, build a raft.
Maybe one day, you'll be telling people, I told him he was wrong.
After all, your questions are sarcasm.

[P-Motion]

Here is the math that the idea is based on.

One more time...please help me understand....this thing is going to accelerate. I see absolutely nothing from you displaying this obvious phenomenon. I have no idea why you ignore my questions! If you say you have the math....show me the math!

Jim, I know trig....maybe not as good as you, but....this is not about "just trig"....it is going to accelerate and there are some other things that have to be factored in. Show me the math...not just a moment in time....what is the max RPM for a wheel of "?" diameter with "X" amount of weights applied at "?" diameter from the axle at "X" o'clock position to apply "?!?" amount of force.....whew! So, just what the hell are you talking about! I'm not an idiot....back off guys, back off! ;-)...lmao


Steve

Tell you whatr Steve. I have asked to have my account deleted.
It'll be easier to build one that works without having people like you in my life.
It is kind of amazing that I could come up with a design for one of Bessler's Wheels in 2 months.
I guess spending time studying paid off. And if it doesn't work, I will ahve an idea why ebcuase I will have used a standard to determine how well the attempt is.
Of course,my friends would say greta to make me feel better, but that would not help me to undersatand why the designed doid not performa s anticipated.
And i think this is where I have done a good job of being critical of my designs, by not making vague statements.
And I don't think it is arrogant of me to offer an opinion based on years of studying a behavior relative to an engineering standard.
Jealousy is what I think of. And I told Alan that the wheel he is working on, that Bessler might have been inspired by the Trebuchet. Somehting modern engineers said couldn't work. Yet it was a seige engine for a millenium. And now, it is a marvel in and of itself for how it uses leverage to generate massive amounts of force.
Gen. Patton said history is an excellent guide. He is right.

[Fletcher]

Get a grip P - this is an internet discussion forum where the main interest is in duplicating Bessler's wheel performances [however that can be done] - his wheels either turned by some as yet unsubstantiated omission or oversight from Newtons Laws [that would be OU or PM as we would describe it today] .. or .. he found an force he could harness directly from the immediate wheel environment [he would have called it PM in his day but today we would not].

If you think the many dedicated people here are insanely jealous of you then you are seriously misguided & imo small minded [you need to get out a bit more].

About once a month new members arrive here with claims of having discovered the secret to Bessler's wheels - some claim to have a working prototype in their workshop - some claim they are about to file a patent - others claim that they can substantiate their confidence with proofs of math & physics.

In the main the forum treats everybody equally & tolerantly but everyone is aware that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof" - no one is going to get all excited & emotional about a new theory until there is more substance to it beyond math, worth raising the blood pressure about - that goes for every member here [new & old] & the ones that have been around long enough realise that it is nothing personal, just a necessity to maintain ones sanity, then they get on & build something tangible to prove their ideas without a lot of fanfare & hoopla & emotional baggage.

So far, not one single person has produced the goods with a demonstration of a Proof of Principle [POP] working model - we live in hope that one day someone [anyone] will solve this riddle & the world will be a better place for its discovery - if you've got two left thumbs, that's too bad, get some help - if you've got the answer that breaks the Laws of Conservation of Energy, Momentum & Angular Momentum then that would be considered true PM, good for you, you'd be the first one in the history of this discussion board & the PM/OU field at large, so go spread the goods news & get the peer review you need to have any credibility with the scientific community who will ultimately have to rewrite Newton's Laws & amend the Math & Physics texts to accommodate your discoveries.

[P-Motion]

Fletcher,
Let's see, Steve posted basically the same thing to me twice. I'd say he was being sarcastic.
I don't have the need for that. Not why I posted in here. And I don't think he's a skeptic. But maybe they should tag a person as to whether or not they think ou is possible.
And Ralph's continued it won't work and not saying why. Yet he is highly respected. For him to continue saying an idea of mine won't work should require a reason why. But none was given.
And I do think it goes back to math. And that is that I have applied it in a way you guys can't.
So yes, I would say some people are jealous because they can not discuss one of my ideas with me because they do not understand the math and how it is applied.
It is like Gregory said, there is so much math out there, how do you know hopw to apply it.
Something I learned in the Navy. Keep it simple. Yet it does seem that most people in here can not calculate an imbalance in a wheel using trig.
I would think something like that would be a basic idea.
Of course, this can be why some people revert to another wheel. Hoping to accomplish what they could not do with the first one.
It is as I told my friend. I am going to make one attempt at it. Actually, I have told two friends that. And as not to waste my time, will use math to give me the best opportunity at being successful.
And I will be able to make a slight adjustment to try a slightly modified version.
And if it doesn't work, then I'll do other things with my time.
Yet in enough of my discussions with people, it is not something with one of my designs they dislike, it is a vague statement about conservation.
Can't discuss shadows. And even then, gravity most likely would be considered an outside impetus because it is the property of another body, not the one being acted upon by it.
So for a body to manipulate itself to allow gravity to increase its' potential would not be in violation of the law of Conservation of Momentum.
So in that instance, it is allowed by science.
Do think I have a grip. And playing mind games with the likes of Steve and Ralph is nothing but a waste of time.