Too weird

[evgwheel]

Jim-Mich
Thanks for your quick reply, appreciate it.
My thoughts only went as far as your first paragraph.
Quote “After the weighted arm has come to rest against either the green stopper or the grey stopper then the wheel will act exactly as if the weight is pinned solid to the wheel� Unquote.
But I believe you’re right. May all your hopes become reality in the new year.

[DrWhat]

Lets solve this thing once and for all. I don't really care now who does it (although I still hope it is me)!

Good luck to you all especially for the New Year. I guess what I'm also trying to say is a belated Merry Christmas.

Tomorrow I begin a new design, a new idea. It will definitely work (like all my previous designs!).

[murilo]

DrWhat,
I wish you all the very best 2008 and inspiration!
Case you get it, I suggest that your nick move to DrWatt. :)
Cheeers.. Murilo

[evgwheel]

It is 2008 and no working wheel yet?

[evgwheel]

quick note on above pic.
text on pic. should read, could be pushed up

[evgwheel]

How weird can you go?
Edit: wheel goes clockwise
Water goes anti-clockwise

[Fletcher]

Couple of questions evg - is the overbalance principle maintained by the green driver weights applying their weight to the bottom bellows [acting nearly vertically] & this forcing water up the straw/tube into the belows CCW from it ? - is the idea that the water is always kept in the right top quadrant while the wheel turns CW ?

A couple of observations about hydraulics & fluids - when two reservoirs are connected by a communication tube pressure develops in the system - the pressure is only dependent on the vertical height of water so even if you have one-way ball valves say, as soon as the valve opens full vertical height is restored to the system & full pressure develops in the bottom belows to counter the weight force of the solid driver weight acting on the belows - N.B. you can use a flexible diaphragm like rubber in the line that will allow the transmission of fluid pressure at all times but this would not allow the transmission of water 'up the stairs' which would be of no use to you from your drawing.

In this case [if I have understood your idea correctly] the green drive weights depress the bottom bellows & cause water to rise to the top left bellows AND lift their previously expended green drive weights back into position to act again later - you would not get a complete transfer of liquid - there would also be head losses in the system dependant on tubing diameter etc.

Basically I don't think it is possible to get a complete fluid transfer form one bellows to the other so that the liquid was always in the same quadrant - additionally the driver weights would be displaced in a way counter to rotation [provide back-torque] which would balance out any gains IMO - I would see this system as operating like any system 'trading height for width' & keeling - as an aside 'hero's fountain' works on a similar principle to what you propose IINM - also you recently mentioned MT116 in another thread - as you have deduced it cannot work because of hydraulic principles i.e. if you take a horizontal cross section at any height the pressure at any position is the same so their is no differential to drive the system - I'll find some fluid & hydraulics info & post a link for you to research to get a better explanation of how these things work.

Just some additional information - one litre of water weighs one kilogram for your calculations - water pressure is linear dependent on vertical height only.

EDIT : HyperPhysics web site - follow the link Mechanics>Fluids

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

Hero's Fountain

http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatu ... ntain.html

[evgwheel]

Thank Fletcher for your input, much appreciated.
To your first paragraph, the answer is yes. Although a sealed solid water container with air pressure (supplied by bellow) could be used to increase atmospheric pressure of 14.7 to lift water in tube, instead of weight.
The ball valve would be needed to block flow to lower level and only allow fluid to go to the up level.
I realise it is not possible for all the fluid to be transferred, but fluid left in each section would be equal and balanced around the wheel.
The placement of conveying tubes (2) is critical as the height and diameter of the tube and pressure supplied. Air release of the higher container has been taken into consideration.
As my knowledge of fluid mechanics is limited I would appreciate your link to further research.
As with all my post in this thread, it is meant to look at weird but maybe plausible answers
Just noticed your links after posting, Thanks

[Fletcher]

evg .. I thought I knew a reasonable amount about fluid dynamics until I started a build with a similar principle to yours a few years ago now [I'll find the post & put it up here if you're interested to understand the similarities http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 4641#24641 ] - I got a whole lot out of the actual build process where the lessons learned were real & not just from a text book - afterwards, I realized that no theoretical learning can ever be a complete substitute for hands on experimentation [they go hand in hand of course] - for me the practical lessons learnt were absolutely tangible & real & a far deeper level of understanding occurred in my case as opposed to the superficial understanding I discovered I really had.

Anyway, the upshot is that if ever we are to find a loophole in known laws then IMO it is likely to come from a better understanding of laws & theories we pretty much take for granted & that is likely to come from an old experimentalist - so keep at it.

[AB Hammer]

Hay Fletcher

How about from someone who never took physics in school? So those teachings don't get in the way? :)

[evgwheel]

Total useless info/questions about the much talked CF lately.
It is not my cup of tea, but hey, we here to use the grey matter. (Very little in my case)
For instance, take a string with weight attached, turn/spin it around by hand and the weight finds a perfect circle/path straight out to the position of your hand.
So we have centrifugal force/energy supplied by your hand and held in place by the centripetal force (as long as you hang on to it).
The point and direction of the two forces are always total opposite to each other in a direct line (I think).
Is there not a way of cheating (tweaking) to make those two forces act as if they are on parallel path, when in fact they are not?
The only way (at the moment) I can think of is to change the outward force into a circular force (or visa-versa) by minutely changing the angle of rotation, in other words, releasing the point of centripetal force by a very small distance (a bit like catch up situation) I have got a drawing on paper, which might achieve this, but it has similar indications as my bike-bell I posted in this thread a while back. Another rough drawing on paper has a connecting point and 2 little springs for the rope to pass through; this system needs to momentarily hold back the wheel several times in a cycle

The point is I don’t know much about these forces, but I imagine that if we can get something to work with CF it has to be literally between 90- 180 interruptions between those two forces in a cycle to create an extra small force without losing any of the original energy. Any extra energy (if any) would need to impact on the wheel at 90 or less degrees.

Any input would be welcome (just don’t tell me I am an idiot I already know that)

What is the opposite force of inertia? Is it gravity? Is inertia a force? Is gravity a force?

[evgwheel]

To late to edit post above, but this is a follow up.
I just add this as an explanation to this post as I didn’t fully understand the re-reading myself.
Yesterday when I wrote this I was thinking about the only free energy source all around us. The universe, our solar system and atoms, and their elliptical paths and CF and forces used in those paths.
The inward force and the outward force of e.g. the moon in relation to earth must be equal all of the time. However it is not a perfect circle, but all things like the moon takes an elliptical path around its attached partner. Which made me think of inertia, (speed of object) to hold the moon in place in relation to the earth’s gravity, it must always be in equal opposition as inertia of the moon rotation. So we have gravity (pulling inwards) and inertia (pushing away).
Use a string and gravity would become centripetal force and inertia would become centrifugal force.
But this by itself will not supply energy to the system. We need a tweak to the system, similar as the moons path has around the earth (elliptical path).
Either force or in my case, string needs to change its pulling power. If centripetal force weakens for a moment, centrifugal force takes on a different path from circular movement to linear movement and speeds up at the same time until the centripetal force increase its holds. This is where the extra energy (free) comes from.
The balance of speed (inertia, centrifugal force) to the finally fine tuned gravity (centripetal force) may be a problem that could be worked out by a clever mathematician if he knows the size of the system.
For me all this is just a thought, but I do think that the elliptical path is the free energy that can be obtained in a CF system that is the favorite of a few members.

[evgwheel]

“Too weird� is getting even weirder. And my images are harder to draw (pathetic is the word).
Anyway I’ll try to explain. The circle and the attached ridge are stationary. The ridge could be a bent (part circle) bar, or a round plate with the right hand side pulled towards you. The pin hinges allow the arms to swing forward or backwards, away or towards you. The idea is that on the RHS the weights are closer to the axle (length of arm hasn’t changed). The arms and weight turn anti-clockwise. If this is at all possible and CF kicks in, the arm going from e to c will go uphill (CF will try to go out in a straight line) but for the same reason arm going from c to a will go down hill and cancel each other out. Will this work? Do I believe in little green men?

[evgwheel]

How open minded are we? How often do we question or look behind the obvious (or not so obvious)?
When I was still at school (a long time ago) I told my teacher, I saw a lake high above (from were I was) up in a mountain, when holidaying in Germany. The (obvious) answer from my teacher was; that is impossible and implied I was lying. It was years later and a bit of research that I found out that I could have seen it as I did in certain circumstances.

A lot of all this has got to do with the above post and posts by other members on Besslerwheel.com. We read the post we may look at the images if attached and either accept or reject them to our own preconceived ideas. (Yes I am guilty).

Especially, an image as in the above post. It only takes one quick look to dismiss it as totally flawed and unworkable. But did we look at sections that have possibilities? Did we remove or added components? Probably not.

I only made this post to remind myself not to give in to preconceived ideas and to look for answers behind the obvious. But that is going to be hard to do, as I would have to wake up with (an almost) blank mind. On second thought I think I do.

[Fletcher]

Evg .. I appreciate that many members do not want to give up on gravity only as the source of the one-sided torque in Bessler's wheels that made them self sustain their rotation - that is their prerogative & they have & will have lots of company well into the future I'm guessing - you can pour over gravity only designs looking at both the obvious & the unobvious until the cows come home, but you are right, once you have some preconceived ideas about what types of designs are not possible [no matter what is done to them] then I find it almost impossible to spend the time analysing another one, so I leave it to others keen on that approach.

I will add though that Bessler publicly described his wheels as gravity wheels, so there must be an element of gravity used in them somewhere & not just in the ordinary, all components have mass & are affected by gravity way either - if you take his description of 'gravity wheel' & the various writings then it becomes apparent that he did shift weights around inside the wheel to create overbalance & give the one-sided torque necessary to self sustain the rotation e.g. in one translation from DT he refers to his principle of 'excess weight' which is clearly a reference to overbalance & how the weights were the constituent PM themselves - so in that sense he is absolutely correct with the statement that they are gravity wheels - what he doesn't tell you is what the force was he found to shift the weights into position against gravity that he called his 'Prime Mover' & some of us want to find out what that was/is so we look & expend energy in that direction [speaking for myself].

Personally unless I see a well explained theory & diagram showing a Prime Mover force with potential to shift weights then I just can't work up the energy to study it [there's those preconceived ideas popping up again blinding my thinking] so I choose not to respond as a rule - what does surprise me is the lack of discussion from bona fide gravity only members who might want to tweak someone elses gravity only design in the hope of finding a working solution.

No offence intended - just don't like to see your ideas not get a hearing from what I thought would be the most relevant parties with a vested interest in gravity only - thru discussion it gives everybody an opportunity to learn something.