letting go... a little bit ;P

[Jonathan]

Actually, it is the oddest thing. I tried to prove that it won't work, but for some reason it seems like it will if the weight movement transistion point is less than 45 degrees above horizontal. I'm puzzled at this result because I've worked with devices like this before, and I'm well convinced that none of them work. I'll do the math on paper (I'm always better that way than on a computer), and if I still can't figure out why it shouldn't work, I'll build "Plan B".

[Oxygon]

I'll build "Plan B".

It would be simple to build... all'be it the same thing... in essence.

You may have more friction/losses with the guide wheels...

I've had this "in pocket" for a long while now... its good to see my analysis of the forces involved can be seconded.

[jim_mich]

Jonathan, this is the same small effect I found when working on the bouyancy chain device. It has to do with the fact the one weight cheats by moving in a straight line (cord) during transition allowing it to move just a little farther around the arc while traveling the same distance as the other weight.

This seems to be the mechanical equivilant of (what was it we call it, the David Diamond bouyancy wheel?)

[Jonathan]

I thought you had disproved the hydraulic devices. In that case I will build Plan B. I did try the math as I said, and it didn't go well.

[Jonathan]

I built a version of Plan B where the two weights that fall in synchrony are joined into one, and without the inner corner pulley, and it didn't work.

[Oxygon]

I never did like "Plan B"...

the weights are held by a "string" and the force of gravity on them is dulled by the "energy absorbing" quality of the strings along with the resistance forces thru all the drive wheels...

A "Oxygon OBW" uses a solid structure which only allows a single path for a weight and utilizes it at a specific point... to another stucturally stabilized weight...

Where as the "sliding effect" to be utilzed in "Plan B" may as well consume the needed energy to pereptuate the process...

Don't short out my idea with yours... >;|

[Oxygon]

I built a version of Plan B where the two weights that fall in synchrony are joined into one, and without the inner corner pulley, and it didn't work.

Was this "Plan B" or another version "there of"...?

Are you saying to tested "Oxygon OBW" or the "Plan B"/"Plan B2" wheel...???

[jim_mich]

The hydraulic device calculated out as a very small output which would be easily used up by friction, etc.

Here again with Oxygon's wheel I calculate only a VERY SMALL amount of energy output, about 1/300 of the weight of each mass. So say Jonathan used 1/2 lb. weights then the unbalance would be about .0267 oz. which is about the weight of a drop (.04 inch cube) of water. Was his wheel built precise enough and friction free enough to detect this small of force? I kind of doubt it.

And again I must add that the other forces that come into play may counter this tiny force.

[Oxygon]

Here again with Oxygon's wheel I calculate only a VERY SMALL amount of energy output, about 1/300 of the weight of each mass. So say Jonathan used 1/2 lb. weights then the unbalance would be about .0267 oz. which is about the weight of a drop (.04 inch cube) of water. Was his wheel built precise enough and friction free enough to detect this small of force? I kind of doubt it.

I used "simple math" of leverage comparasion and ended up with small overbalance... during one point and larger imbalance during the rest...

I know that as components they operate, but the "whole" has not yet been built...

But my results are simaler to yours... which I do not understand "by the way" - layman.

A "little" overbalanc exists within the math and comes very close to "stall" during one point in the process... but doesn't.

[scott]

Hi Everyone,

Thanks a lot, Oxygon, for sharing your idea. I encourage you to keep working on it and I especially encourage you to build a model. Fostering an enviroment where people feel they can discuss ideas like this is exactly why I started this website in the first place. Thank you!

That said, I'm now going to give you my honest take on the matter, which might not make me very popular... :-)

Based on my knowledge and experience, I have come to the conclusion that all schemes such as this cannot work. Why? Because the principle that they try to exploit is "exchanging vertical distance for horizontal distance. "

We all know that a weight falling downward can push another weight horizontally. In fact, with low friction a weight can fall a very small vertical distance and push another weight a very large horizontal distance.

But in a turning wheel (closed loop cycle), the horizontal distance that provided the torque to turn the wheel will quickly become vertical distance that we must lift the weight again in order to close the loop, and we just can't do it.

Think of it this way, in a hypothetical frictionless environment, a weight could fall 1 inch and push another weight out 10 miles to produce a huge torque on the wheel. But by the time the horizontal sliding weight reaches the nadir of the wheel, we must now somehow lift it 10 miles straight up. But in our scheme the "pushing" weight only falls one inch. Schemes like this always balance out with the keel effect (with the COG directly under the axle, as discussed elsewhere on this site.)

Now, I am the last person on earth to rule out a scheme based on theory alone. Only a model will tell us for sure! But I have built many models based on this same principle, and I now have a lot of confidence in the theory that "trading vertical distance for horizontal distance" is a dead end.

If Bessler's wheel was genuine, I think there must have been something more going on... (but that's just my opinion!)

Best,
Scott

[Tausen]

opps

[Jonathan]

I agree with Scott.
Oxygon: "Don't short out my idea with yours... >;|", I won't, I figured that if it did work, then the principles are similar enough that yours would too. And to clarify, what I built may be called Plan B2. See the following attachment, it is as I built it. It is important to note that the central weight weighs twice the amount of the other two, and it has four strings coming off it. Also, the black dot in the center is not connected to the strings, it is the axle.
Jim, I didn't realize the force was so small, I'm certain it wouldn't overcome the friction of my device. Further, that is such a small imbalance that I think even talking about this is verging on pointless. For future reference, my wheels can detect about a cubic centimeter of plastic at a few inch radius, though it depends on the wheel (weight, inertia). But a water drop would need a bigger wheel than I have time to build.

[Oxygon]

Hi Everyone,

Thanks a lot, Oxygon, for sharing your idea. I encourage you to keep working on it and I especially encourage you to build a model. Fostering an enviroment where people feel they can discuss ideas like this is exactly why I started this website in the first place. Thank you!

I would hope others donate an idea...

I have found thru-out the past ten years glaring errors in similar designs, I feel that "Plan B" is too different to use as a reference...

We all know that a weight falling downward can push another weight horizontally. In fact, with low friction a weight can fall a very small vertical distance and push another weight a very large horizontal distance.
But in a turning wheel (closed loop cycle), the horizontal distance that provided the torque to turn the wheel will quickly become vertical distance that we must lift the weight again in order to close the loop, and we just can't do it. Think of it this way, in a hypothetical frictionless environment, a weight could fall 1 inch and push another weight out 10 miles to produce a huge torque on the wheel. But by the time the horizontal sliding weight reaches the nadir of the wheel, we must now somehow lift it 10 miles straight up. But in our scheme the "pushing" weight only falls one inch. Schemes like this always balance out with the keel effect (with the COG directly under the axle, as discussed elsewhere on this site.)

If Bessler's wheel was genuine, I think there must have been something more going on... (but that's just my opinion!)

We'll know soon... this needs resolution.

[Oxygon]

I agree with Scott.
Oxygon: "Don't short out my idea with yours... >;|", I won't, I figured that if it did work, then the principles are similar enough that yours would too. And to clarify, what I built may be called Plan B2. See the following attachment, it is as I built it. It is important to note that the central weight weighs twice the amount of the other two, and it has four strings coming off it. Also, the black dot in the center is not connected to the strings, it is the axle.
Jim, I didn't realize the force was so small, I'm certain it wouldn't overcome the friction of my device. Further, that is such a small imbalance that I think even talking about this is verging on pointless. For future reference, my wheels can detect about a cubic centimeter of plastic at a few inch radius, though it depends on the wheel (weight, inertia). But a water drop would need a bigger wheel than I have time to build.

SimplerOxy.jpg is "simpler"... but still employs a technique I have negative oppinions about...

I personally believe the imbalance is not as small as portrayed...

Proof is in the pudding...

...

It's time to make pudding.

[Jonathan]

The technique you don't like, is it the strings? Because I used sewing thread to minimize friction, and it doesn't really stretch either. Of course it's failure still has no significant bearing on your original device, I will look into attempting you original design.