A suggestion for the unidirectional Gera wheel

[path_finder]

Dear all,
If you remember the simple design I proposed for the unidirectional wheel,
(see it again here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... 33449c6942)
the most important point not solved was: How to lift up the weights between 4:00 and 6:00 of the clock?
Hoping to improve the creativity in this forum, I first gave some exotic ways to do that.
May be some of yours found an efficient way, but apparently nobody shared his discovery.
Therefore I give now to you my solution.

Instead to use eight weights hanged to the outer rim of the wheel, I split them in two parts:
- four weights attached to the outer rim, each separated within 90 grades.
- four weights fixed at one end of a lever, where the axis is located at the middle of the wheel radius (and also separated by 90 grades)
The both animations below are showing the two assemblies.
Everything for the moment is not represented for a better view.
Per example the course of the oscillating rods is limited by some bumpers (you can see only the result of them), and idem for the cords (visibles in the previous topic above).

Now, try to make a combination of the both animations.
For sure you will be able to find why they are complementary.
Where the springs must be linked? (remember the characters in MT138)

[LustInBlack]

What program do you use for your animations ?!

[Grimer]

What program do you use for your animations ?!

Good question.

I'd like to get hold of a nice simple programme for animating the Perpetual Gravity Motor.

It makes explanation a lot easier.

[path_finder]

Dear LustinBlack,
I'm working under Linux Fedora 10.
All individual shots are made under KolourPaint as *.png
Conversion in *.gif by GIMP
Then as root:
#gifsicle --delay=10 --loop *.gif > anim.gif

This way seems to come from the Middle-Age miniaturist.
But it has an enormous advantage: you find immediately any error.

Note: I'm not sure, but gifsicle could be available (gratis) under Win*&#@è* (not gratis)....

[path_finder]

For a better view, this next animation is the combination of the both previous above.
It is also more slower.
Normally you should not be obliged to take your glasses for finding where the springs are linked.

[AB Hammer]

path_finder

It looks like you are doing something I have played with. Using the outer rim weight to react and counter react with the center weights. The biggest problem is the Keel effect / CF. Each time the weight come in contact with each other you loose the weight distribution effect, causing the lower part to be heavier and will not lift. I could show you a wheel I did with weight manipulations but it also has a device I am not ready to show for it has a special effect.

[AB Hammer]

path_finder

I was posting while you where posting. LOL I see you are doing a little different from what I imagined. So we will see if the negativity of the inner weights will be low enough for the outer positive effect to overcome. This is where the real problem shows itself.

[path_finder]

Dear AB-hammer,
The red and yellow weights can move within some different vertical planes.
There are no shocks between.
The only impact you can take in account is not an impact between the weights, but an impact on the bumpers, therefore an impact between the weights and the flywheel itself (for those interested by the impact point).



Obviously this is the opposite end of the rod where the red weights are attached, wich pulls the springs. So far due to the ratio (1/1) of the lever, the force is sufficient for lift-up the yellow weight. And even if it would be not sufficient, you can change the ratio of the lever, or (better) change the value of the weights (may be one of the tricky joke of Bessler).

another interesting point: if you increase the lenght of the lever, the shape must be curved (remember the mention of some warped planks) and in this case the rest position of the levers is similar with the tail of a crayfish. But this is another story...

[DrWhat]

path_finder, you just might be one of our best hopes for success!

[iacob alex]

Hi Path_Finder !

As Dr.What said..."...you just might be one of our best hopes for succes".

Why? Because,you play around Bessler's MT23 concept ,and you are a good device builder.

And more...you have the fresh air of Europe 's capital of lights,Paris...thinking on your crystal clear designs.

You know better than others, that the only problem in a long arm-short arm configuration (on the same side of the fulcrum) , is "how to lift up the weight..." ,as you said.

What do you think ,about your "altern3.gif" design ,with two spokes only...as a first suggestion?!

All the Best! / Alex

[path_finder]

Dear Jacob alex,
For the moment the air in Paris is not specially fresh (more than 36°C), but I'm happy to be back again at home after 6 months in Africa (look at the map in the index page, there are a lot of red dots now, where it was empty before) where I can improve my thinking for the gravitic engines.

On a basic concept why not use only two spokes.
Nevertheless and in accordance with my own experiments, the most efficient design (giving a good torque and a good succession of active forces) is still this one based on EIGHT weights, so in total sixteen weights. In that case the moving planes must be parallel and the cords/bumpers/rods must be well calculated.
Many thanks for your remark.

[path_finder]

Dear Dr-What,
You forget all data published yet, allowing (if assembled by a clever way) the building of this unidirectionnal wheel. If you observe carefully the topics published since six months, everything was already available for someone willing to conclude. Nevertheless I don't regret to be obliged to give so much details and in particular a lot of animations allowing the readers to access with a solution. It seems to be a mandatory. Now the questions are:
- what kind of readers are visiting this forum
- what level of basic education is needed for a minimum of comprehension
- why there are apparently so less builders and so few replicate attempts
- why the gravitic engines represent a so small level of interest in the mankind
- why 99% of the topics are just theorical considerations.
Anyway, many thanks for the encouragement.

[greendoor]

Animations simply show a sequential movement. They don't show the energy input required to power that movement.

Pathfinder - with all due respect for your skills as an animator, it is very hasty to bemoan the fact that nobody is building your ideas. Because none of your ideas have any potential for overunity whatsoever. I believe you know this to be true, and have said as much.

Without a clear concept of where the energy input is being developed, there is no point building what is doomed to become a static display. Or a hoax with a hidden motor input.

There can be no hidden magic in any special path. This should be self-evident by now, but I guess we all have to go through that particular learning curve.

A basic understanding of 'normal force' should help to explain why restraining the path of a free-falling weight can only waste energy, not make energy.

The real secret of excess momentum input from gravity force has been presented in other threads. It's a solid principle that works in practice and obeys Newtons laws.

The optimum 'special path' is straight down and straight up. That's the direction that gravity can accelerate a mass. That's the shortest, fastest path back up again. Trying to restrain a mass to move sideways robs the mass of acceleration. Friction is increased. More Force is diverted to ground instead of providing motion. A small amount of loss can be tolerated if, and only if, there is a basic working principle that accumulates more momentum than is required to reset the mechanism.

Some builders will build once they can see a valid working principle, supported by simple maths.

Remember, most people denied Bessler's wheel worked even while it was turning. Humans are resistant to change - and there has been a lot of brainwashing put into hiding this particular truth.

[path_finder]

Dear greendoor,
I understand your impatience after so many years without answer.
Before to say that the proposed design are not convenient, did you built just one in view to verify?
The theory is here (the energy available is on the green area), like shown in a previous post:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... 20e5ce5459
I respect your careful reticence, but by staying only at the theoretical level, may be, you missed some practical experiments able to open some new doors.
In any case, many thanks for your comments.

[ovyyus]

Remember, most people denied Bessler's wheel worked even while it was turning.

The opposite is true, most people reported their amazement and wonder at how well Bessler's wheel worked.