We don't care the Bessler wheel, the most important is to build a working wheel...

[path_finder]

step #10 of my explanation
The last for today. But the next night you will be obliged to count the sheeps...
The cords are in nylon. Will be rendered tomorow.
Et voilà le résultat...

[path_finder]

step #9 of my explanation

The answer is very simple: cords.
For each weight, attach one end of the cord to the axis of the weight and the other end to the rim of the wheel (at the axis of the precedent rod par exemple).
Like shown in the picture below, where the cords are RED when pulled, and GREEN when loose.
'Elementary, my Dear Watson...'

Now we have solved the question of the return, how can we oblige the weight to follow the YELLOW horizontal path?..
Be patient. This will be in the next post. (I'm tired, I leave you thinking a little bit about...).

[AB Hammer]

path_finder

As in the one I did, you will find allot of friction problems.

[genmurphy]

Hi Path-finder,

Do not worry, you are not the only one here. I am reading your posts with great interest also. I have two questions:
- Do you have found a solution for the "return" that does not imply too much friction ?
- Have you constructed a such wheel (and is it working?)

I suppose that I just have to wait for the next posts to find the answer.

[erick]

path_finder

As in the one I did, you will find allot of friction problems.

I have to agree with Alan on this one. I too have done quite a bit of experimentation with this concept (in WMD) and friction becomes a big problem. The only way I was ever able to overcome it was with the application of extremely powerful (to the point of not being practical in reality) springs. Only at that point did my wheel spin (quite forcefully too). Even still, as I said before, the design could never been constructed in reality <AND/OR> its apparent running may have been the result of a flaw in WM2D...

[path_finder]

Many thanks to AB_Hammer, genmurphy, and erick for reading and posting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: The facts reported hereafter are totally fictitious.
Any analogy with any living people or ancient history is pure coincidence.
There is absolutely no connection with the Bessler Wheel nor perpetuum mobile of any kind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First: regarding the question of the friction, there is no particular problem
1. if the weights are cylindrical
2. if they are free on their axis (allowing therefore rolling on a surface per example, see later)
3. if the rods are retained by a cord
From where could come the friction?
Note that the weights rotate between 3:00 and 4:00 at the same apparent rotational speed than the wheel
(they are linked by their rods) and therefore they just touch the inner rim of the wheel without friction.
And then they leave the rim at 4:00.
During the rest of the travel they are free.

Second: I don't use WMD. Never. I'm working with computers since 1965 (IBM1130+fortran) and I have no trust at all in these diabolic machines.
Like Tarzan I make my calculation myself and alone.
So I'm not facing strange effects nor subliminal frictions nor adrenalin pressure coming from screens overpassing the emergence-threshold.
In addition, I made several experimental models with various size.
I never encountered any friction problem. I can't see what kind of friction problems you are referring.
(who said 'in any case it will work, even with some approximation in the values? or something like that)
I never used springs. May be the 1717 quidam used some springs just to fix the weights in their slot.
The axis were perhaps retractile inside the weights and these feature allowed an easy removing/installing process for the demonstrator (it's just a suggestion)
Anyway the design can't be more simplest: articulated rods and cords.
I could use some bearings for the rod articulations. It was not even needed.

Third: nevertheless this design offers a lot of coincidences with the story of a quidam living in the years 17xx.
Let's judge yourself:
- the weights shock the outer rim eight time by turn (if using eight weights)
- there are rods attached at the outer rim of the wheel
- the weights are acting by pair
- the swing of the weights give the motion to the wheel
- the design was so simple that the carpenter's son can make a replicate
- the power is proportional with the radius of the wheel and the value of the weights
- something seems to roll inside
- some curved wood plank can be seen
In addition the mysterious bestiary and the MT138 can be justified:
- the peacock (see the concentration of dots at the lowest part of the picture at http://www.edukshun.info/wp-content/upl ... eacock.jpg)
- the crayfish tail (wich is a good analogy with the association of curved planks)
- the MT138 toy (where the scissor-jack shows the change of lenght)
- the spinning top (wich makes the suggestion for the reversing of the rod between 4:00 and 6:00)
If your design assumes more than the above clues, let me know and you will be the winner.

Another animation hereafter, wich shows a more sophisticated model.
This one follows the same principe, but has the big advantage to fully respect the ideal path defined more above.
Tomorrow will be another day. I go to bed.

[DrWhat]

path_finder

excellent work. This must be taking you some time to write/draw up.

Without raining on your parade, if you can somehow have more weights on the right than the left, and still following your preferred path then you will have a runner. And this is where the problem lies. As the rhs weights are made to follow a wider path they spread out. On the lhs the weights are all squashed together.

So you are basically creating a see saw principle where a larger mass on a see saw can be placed closer to the pivot, and a lighter mass can be placed further out and the see saw still remains balanced.

Still, we need to take first steps to reach our goals. And you have probably shown a very intelligent way to shift the weights. The question is where to next?

[DrWhat]

I just saw your latest animation and am getting more interested.

[erick]

Isn't the title of this thread "We Don't Care About Bessler's Wheel the most Importing Thing is to Construct a Working Wheel"? Seems contradictory to sight Bessler clues as proof of concept for a design that supposedly isn't at all related to Bessler. Also, dismissing the usefulness of computers while at the same time using them to create animated gifs seems equally contradictory... (I'm just giving you a hard time :-) )

Anyhow... This design won't work. Trust me. I tinkered with this thing for months but to no avail. I even figured out a way to almost remove all of the friction from the system. It was all for nothing. That's the thing about making animations as opposed to using a real simulation software. It's easy to make an animation do whatever you want it to do (hence the use of CG in feature films, etc.) but it's important to keep in mind that it does not reflect reality.

[genmurphy]

Hi Path-finder,

Thanks for your new posting. It is still not clear for me how you make the rod go back on your ideal path at 4/5 O'clock.

If your design assumes more than the above clues, let me know and you will be the winner.

I am personally convinced that they are many many way to make a gravitational motor (and that what you present here is not the Bessler machine). But I also know that your ideal path has a very good name. It is indeed the ideal path...

Genmurphy.

[AB Hammer]

It seems to me that path_finder likes talking in riddles and reverse statements. The path he keeps talking about is similar as this one from a design on keelynet. A proven non runner in that form.

http://www.keelynet.com/energy/kolo.gif

IMO his icon shows more promise for he is not showing anything about lifting the fallen weights. It also show butting up against each other and others are crossing each other. I don't see where you can have it both ways. The only other way is that it is in a track not shown and then friction problems consist.

path_finder

Please be less allusive in your meanings, it is starting to sound like a game. IMO Your rodx3.gif shows a duel layer and a upside down path other than realpath_unidir.png which you posted earlier. It seem like everything has a track of some form to get these path reaction.

[erick]

Hi path_finder and all,

Attached is the WM2D file that I created with an apparently "working" wheel. Like I said before, it soon became clear to me that either 1.) this wheel would be impossible to build in reality due to its un-believably strong springs (A 3/4" spring with 40,000 kg of pull/push) <and/or> 2.) It only runs as a result of a flaw in the programming of WM2D. Either way, the important thing to know is that this setup will not work. By all means, you should play around with this concept to your hearts content, until you're satisfied with the results. I'm just speaking from expereience and trying to save you some time and effort. Trust me, I looked at literally hunreds of different setups of this concept. None of them worked.

[pstroud]

path_finder

I support your general concept and flow / path for the weights. After all, it requires too much energy to lift weights at 6 and again at 12. Many of Bessler's designs were based on the movement at 6 and 12, all of which are failures before the secret was discovered. IMPO, I think this was the root of many design failures.

I have to point out that your basic design / flow is based on the same basic principle as the Chas Campbell's Snooker Ball Gravity Wheel Concept . Chase Campbell has 2 claims of free energy devices, a flywheel generator and also a graivty wheel based on balls. His free energy device with balls follows the same path that you describe in your design. Its the same basic principle but you are proposing a different variation for achieving the same outcome based on the same weight flow path.

If you have not seen this vidio of the Chas Campbell Snooker Ball Gravity Wheel, I suggest everyone view it. It was not perfected at the time this video was taken and required a little intervention to get past some warping in the wheel because it was not strong enough. However, the video appears to demonstrate that this concept has promise.

The link for the Chas Campbell Snooker Ball Gravity Wheel is below:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6284&hl=en

Preston

[pstroud]

path_finder:

I am impressed with the work, thought and documentation you have put forth on your concept.

I punched your green dot.

Preston

[path_finder]

First and by courtesy I want to give an answer to:

DrWhat, many thanks for reading

Erick, it's absolutely true: I make my drawings pixel by pixel (under KolourPaint/Linux Fedora) and my animation using gif files under a shell command. It's perhaps a middle-age miniaturist method, but it's a good way to find a lot of errors. I agree that an animation could be a tricky show: that the reason why I will never show a video (thanks to the cut/paste and loop functions).

genmurphy, you are absolutely right and there are a lot of solutions for the gravitic engine. This is the big question on this forum: should we limit our investigations to the Bessler wheel? I understand due to the brandname of the Web site, that Bessler could be the major subject of discussion. Perhaps should we move to another forum? What is the opinion of Scott about this point? (I take the opportunity to say him again: many thanks for hosting us)

AB_Hammer, the real_path_unidir.png picture shows effectively a path for an UNIDIRECTIONAL design, instead the rodx3.gif is an animation showing the basic concept used for a BIDIRECTIONAL design (I apologize, this anticipation was an timing error in my explanation)
I had a little deception when you have posted the kolo concept. I would be in better shape with the next picture from kolo, much more interesting and visible at http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/5832/perpet6.htm. I understand better now why you are referring to some friction problems.
It's obvious that both designs (and specially the first you showed) do have serious problems of friction. I did never got my inspiration from this design and as you will see, don't use this umbrella. In addition we know that the first design can NOT work, for several reasons the first one coming from the fact that everything is connected to the central axis.
(any linkage with the central axis will reduce the torque by approaching the COG closer to the center)
On this drawing only the path is still correct.
Regarding the sentence: It also show butting up against each other and others are crossing each other I can just say:
- The radius of the weights have to be chosen in view to be just in touch together.
if you want to avoid any touch between, just use a smaller radius for the weights
and make the compensation by using the 'depleted uranium' material (density: 18,5Kg/dm3)
Anyway I don't see any disconveniences if the weight are touching, each one is still fixed on the inner circle during the lift-up by it's pulled cord.
- The animation shows effectively a superposition of two weights between 5:00 and 6:00. Where is the problem?
Either you build a wheel with a limited number of weights (par example: 6) and there is enough room for everybody.
Either you build a wheel with more weights (par example 12, like in the picture legsA.gif), in that case you have to use two kind of weights,
like explained in the picture below 'mixed_weights.png'. If necessary they can even pass across through.

and to pstroud, many thanks for your encouragement.



Just a general remark:
- we are not here in an university examination. I'm not a teacher et this forum is not a tribunal.
- Remember the first point of my topic: I just made the proposal to put at your disposal some reflexions I made about the gravitic engine.
- Don't be surprised if I refuse to give you the totality of my research.
- The new generation is attempted to obtain everything and immediately (I have three adult sons) and without effort like the birdies in the eagle's nest.
Be patient and don't hesitate to verify by yourself, making some replicate.
- I don't need money, and I don't seek any investor.
- I will never request any patent (that is not the best way), and therefore I must be prudent against the inventor of the last minute.
- I need eventually an publisher for my book/DVD but not before the foundation has been successfully established (That's another story)...
- I'm not in hurry (unfortunately we need to keep the oil lobby for some years more, in view do not destroy the economy)
I apologize for the delay today (I had a family meeting and I'm preparing my travel to Ivoiry Coast).

Now, let's me return back to the UNIDIRECTIONAL ideal_path in my next post.