Peter Lindemann

[graham]

Peter Lindemanns' article is an interesting read

http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Dr ... Engine.pdf

I don't know if you see any possibilities here but it's worth thinking about.
There are two possible problems that I can see at first glance.

1. Position 3 seems to be questionable since C F might prevent a re latch here.

2. Position 5 where the weight fully restores would require the weight to lose some of its' angular velocity

That said, it would need to actually be built to prove the concept one way or the other.

What say you ?

Graham

[AB Hammer]

Greetings Graham

I have looked at the wheel and I find it interesting and a fair amount of work went into it. A look with my grid only shows a single point of advantage due to the swing and that normally gets eat up by friction. But the release is very interesting and there may be other uses for it. The swing having a pendulum downward force does have some advantage but I don't see enough here to get excited about. I also don't see the pendulum swing getting back to the catch either due to if it is turning you loose the return swing.

Sorry but I don't see a runner here.

[graham]

Hi AB, you said:

A look with my grid only shows a single point of advantage due to the swing and that normally gets eat up by friction.

I don't see friction being a problem but the initial downswing might relieve some of the weight from the fulcrum until the weight got close to its max down position prior to the upswing.
This is not a good thing.

Graham

[rlortie]

Due to a previous contractual agreement I will keep my opinions available until after the forum forms a consensus of their findings.

Ralph

[jonnynet]

Maybe the secret is the central axle. Bessler's wheels might not worked by rolling continuously on the floor. Possibly the whole wheel could lift its internal weights by its own weight. So there may something special on the suspension.

[AB Hammer]

I don't see friction being a problem but the initial downswing might relieve some of the weight from the fulcrum until the weight got close to its max down position prior to the upswing.
This is not a good thing.

Graham

Greetings Graham

The Friction first comes from the cam that causes the release of the weight, and then the release itself. Then the weight swings out and down as expected from other swing test of wheel work.
Take a weight on a string. Swing it back and forth and the drop it about 6 inches at its approximately 6:00 position. Then you will see what happens to the swing. It tends to nearly stop swinging all together.
I hope this help.

Alan

[graham]

Take a weight on a string. Swing it back and forth and the drop it about 6 inches at its approximately 6:00 position. Then you will see what happens to the swing. It tends to nearly stop swinging all together.
I hope this help.

I agree 100 percent Alan and that's another major problem with this design

By the way when will we see your small prototype video that you said would be ready soon?

Graham

[graham]

However, that being said, C F might play into this equation and that spring assisted return is interesting.
But then again, won't there be an equal and opposite reaction from the spring that works "counter" to the wheels direction of rotation?

Ralph ??

[AB Hammer]

Well Graham

I doubt if CF plays much of a part for it has to turn first. LOL
Besides the funning. The spring has to be hit with some force to have any effect and if not enough force it will be more like a dampener. If spun fast to start with I would expect to see a quick slowdown.

I normally am not home at this time of day but I have a house full of sick people, so what the heck. As for my video I would say sometime next week.

[Jim Williams]

In defense of the US Patent Office a patent can be issued for a perpetual motion machine if a working model is shown to them. They even have a class/subclass exclusively for perpetual motion, (class 415 subclass 916, searchable over the internet at www.uspto.gov ), whixh while containing some patents related to perpetual motion has none originating from it. All that USPTO requires for a patent to be issued in 415/916 is for them to see that working model of which so far there has been none.

[DrWhat]

I can tell you now that as impressive as it is it won't work.
When there is a latched weight there is a counter rotating force occurring. I.e. a tendency to want to turn the wheel back.
Also each weight will not swing up high enough to re-latch at the ideal position.

But some of the basic concepts are good.

[rlortie]

However, that being said, C F might play into this equation and that spring assisted return is interesting.
But then again, won't there be an equal and opposite reaction from the spring that works "counter" to the wheels direction of rotation?

Ralph ??

First off Bessler said everything must turn with the axle or was it "about" the axle? Which ever it does not apply here, as there is a stationary cam. It is my conclusion that a cam causes the same negative effect as a stationary ramp.

By verbal contractual agreement, I cannot tell you this design wont work, but I can give you my findings.

As AB hammer has pointed out; simply make a pendulum on a string. start it osculating and then lower the pivot point. You will find what is called 'hook swing' referred to in crane operation manuals.
In this case one must not forget that not only is the pivot point dropping it is following a radial path. Move your pendulum pivot in and out from your body as you lower it.

In order to latch, the leg of the cam follower (bell crank) must weigh more than the latching leg. IF the pendulum makes it that far it must lift this latch to engage.

Now clear you mind of all the amazing gadgetry displayed here and look for the points of weight disposition on the wheel, can you really see that much 'imbalance'?

How does this relate to the Milkovic machine? Bessler said in effect that his machine gained force from swinging weights. What is the properties of a pendulum bob when it reaches azimuth, it becomes weightless. You are not moving the weight but relieving it of its gravitational mass. Thus when the pendulum swings toward the spring it becomes weightless. Now the wheel is momentarily lighter on the descending side than the ascending. You are looking for the amplified force created from inertia as the bob hits six o'clock. with the dampening effect created by the pivot in motion, you will not create this force.

A longer stroke on the Milkovic balance beam adds this same 'pivot in motion' dampening effect to the pendulum. Thus you must have a very short stroke to produce any effect. Note the the primary force gained on said lever is on the 'up-stroke' when the pendulum is near or at six o'clock and it falls as the pendulum reaches azimuth.

As shown in the videos, it takes great effort to hold the beam down, but little is shown or explained what happens on the up-stroke.

My thanks to John Collins for my off-the-wall Bessler mis-quotes.
and if you wish more input of my opinion regarding this wheel design feel free to ask.

Ralph

[rlortie]

I can tell you now that as impressive as it is it won't work.
When there is a latched weight there is a counter rotating force occurring. I.e. a tendency to want to turn the wheel back.
Also each weight will not swing up high enough to re-latch at the ideal position.

I agree and the fact that the cam arm of the bell crank is already heavier than the ratchet end does not help matters.

@ Jim Williams, I agree with your patent statement; And is why I often state that if you build a working wheel, you better build a show and tell model. One you can sit on the Patent Appeals Board podium for display.

Ralph

[rlortie]

For those interested in following another forum thread related to this please go to: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topi ... #msg154892

Ralph

[ruggerodk]

Dear Graham,

I think this double escapement would improve Lindemann's design.

The second escapement hold the weight and spring tension untill position 6, where it is released.

In this way the weight only have to rise 40 % to get back to its original position.

Another benefit of this improved design is the weight beeing further out and closer to the rim at position 3, 4 and 5 - which should give more torque and velocity to the wheel.

any comments?

regards
ruggero ;-)