www.gravitywheel.com has been updated

[triplock]

John,

My problem is this.

Are you promoting your hypothesis in your website, or just promoting yourself ?

You hold a position of responsibility , by default, within the pm world, and should lead by example. Your design is a 'crock'. we all have 'em. So why then is this failure dressed up as something more than it is. Why not simply just post a sketch, like most of us do, and move on.

I apologise if this and my previous post in this topic make it seem personal John. It's not. It's just that this relentless self-promotion is becoming quite galling.

You say:

'I said on my web site that this was an abbreviated explanation. I haven't ignored the written clues, I just didn't bother to mention them. I'll add more confirmations over the next few days, to the last page on the web site. '

Why ? From experience your design or close variant doesn't / won't work, so why bother ? None of it is fact.

John, my advice is not to build the expectation levels up so high next time, 'cause the fall is great.

Best regards, Chris

[rlortie]

I have been following this thread and find it rather disappointing that as of yet, no one has voiced the obvious misgivings of this design.

Rather than explain basics 101, I will not cast a shadow until it has had the opportunity to run its course.

Ralph

[triplock]

From experience your design or close variant doesn't / won't work

[justsomeone]

From John's website :

"Bessler was adamant that five mechanisms were necessary to the successful operation of his wheel and the reason is this."

Does anyone else have an issue with this? How about saying this instead " It is my OPINION that Bessler was trying to tell us to use 5 mechanisms ".

To John's credit, he never said he had a working wheel.

I still really like John but think he can twist clues better than anyone.

[rlortie]

Does it really matter how many there is, five, seven or nine. Look closely at the animations. He is still attempting to lift three with two.

It is a height for width thing and as soon as this is readily seen and accepted there is no need to haggle over it or Johns misgivings.

The embodiment of the machine could care less where the weights are, its the pinned pivot points you must reference from.

Sorry John, I have in a moment of upheaval spoke my 2 cents worth!

Ralph

[Wubbly]

Why ? From experience your design or close variant doesn't / won't work, so why bother ? None of it is fact.

It's hard to change someone's beliefs. Once they get an idea into their head and spend years convincing themselves it is truth, it will take more than 5 pages of thread and 3 days to convince them otherwise. Someone might learn something from the mechanism. We all believe the mechanism is out there, otherwise we still wouldn't be here looking for a solution.
Thank you Mr. Collins for your contribution to the overall quest.

[AB Hammer]

I would simply say that it has to much weight below the keel line and not enough effects to overcome it. Ralph said it best when I first talked to him. Picking yourself up with your boot lace. That is the reason I linked a non running design I and Alone did before. It showed over balance arms but the shifting weight held negatively below the keel line.

If you have something else John, now would be a good time to bring it out. The string is still showing allot of learn-able information.

Alan

[Ed]

Don't worry John, at least you didn't spend £13,000 on a patent for a component that was derived from that decorative squiggle in DT. If you do spend some money, you may want to put it towards sharpening your razor.

IMHO, let us all not argue over sim vs. build. Don't just sit there with your sim software trying everything without having in mind what it is you are trying to achieve. And on the other hand don't try building something for real unless you are going to be committed to it and not just slap things together and expect good results.

For heaven's sake man, take some advice from Jim and grab a confounded pencil and paper or a spreadsheet and run some simple calculations first!

[LustInBlack]

I guess you are all missing the point, at least, the point John is trying to make! I don't say it's possible, but, he tells us that overbalance is NOT the principle of this mechanism..

IF you think correctly, you should see that he wants to use the pumping action at the proper moment to induce movement by shifting the center of mass momentarily.. While this particular model shown on this thread shows a non-working wheel, I guess there is a sweet spot where the pumping action would overcome the underbalance ..

Well, I'm just saying what I believe is intended, nothing else!..

I also believe John might have some more mechanisms inside this!?

Btw, I made a new sim and it didn't work..

[beapilot]

When you have a mechanism that interconnects two (or more) weights, a simple method to determine how the weights will move is to connect the two weights with a line and if the weights are equal mass then you divide the line in half t5o find the center of mass. Gravity will pull downward on the center of mass causing the weights to move however. This also will give you a sense as to whether the overall wheel is OOB.

If the weights are not equal then you divide the line proportionally. This is a static-type test. A dynamic test involving CF and momentum is of course more complex but similar.

Jim_Mich,

I use this approach too. It is very useful for quick answers.

John,

That is the reason why I requested the still images over a video. Your current images will not give me a precise measurement of this technique.

I will tell you the results I got from your current images (these measurements are not to be accepted as the answer for the images are moved and the wheel is turned). Under theses conditions, the weights will (if that is correct):

1.The weights will move as described by itself. Once at 270 degrees (6'O clock), the weights move as shown by the given image on its own.
2.At 90 degrees (12'O clock), the weights will return back to its position on its own.

Your four still images as shown in the upload from Jim_Mich is the way I did my measurements. I took the center of the weights end to end and drew a line (this creates the imaginary rods). Then I measured the line and split it in half. I did same for all four images. Then I took a reference point (because the images move) which is one of the top dots and drew a vertical line down on each image equally. Lastly, I measured the distance from the center of the weights parallel to the vertical line.

I got the first two images 6 cm, third image 5.9 cm, and the last image 5.5 cm. The angle of the wheel is a factor too but did not take it in consideration at the moment because I would rather find it on a better set of images as requested. (I predict each will be 6 cm in the requested images).

From the measurements of these unsteady images, you can tell that the center of the weights go up 0.5 cm (or you pick a measurement unit). At the same time, the center of the weights shift to the left 0.3 cm.

Since the weights sifted to the left, the wheel wants to turn to the right but also because it lost weight below it, so it wants to go to the left. To cancel out the confusion for the wheel and to make later complications go away, simply shift the center of the weights to the right 0.3 cm to make it back in its initial position. Lastly, pin it so the weights do not move out of position.

Now it is 0.5 cm up from its initial position and the opposite side of the wheel has the same set but 0.5 cm away from the wheel (in its initial position). This means the wheel wants to turn to the left or to the right depending on which side is angled on.

Once the weight reaches to the top, simply shift the center of weights to the right 0.3 cm, remove the pin, allow the weights to relocate back into its initial position. All the same time while the bottom does the above steps lifting, shifting, and pinning.

In my opinion, if all of the above is correct (which is not because the images provided are inaccurate), and the rods are mass less, then you are guaranteed a Perpetual Machine.

Joshua

[LustInBlack]

In a world where friction doesn't apply ..

I still don't understand why everybody computes that as an overbalanced wheel, when, clearly John stated it is not.

[Mr.Umez]

I'm pretty sure that even if the weights moved exactly as desired you would not get any energy bonus. Since the weights would be all moving at the same rotational speed, the energy gained by the bottom weight moving up would be spent on speeding up the weight moving outwards at the 3:00 position. For swinging to be utilized, the weights also have to co-ordinate their movement in and out with the changing speeds they are traveling.
If this is the principle, then the weights have to have varying rotational speeds, which means the arms are not fixed distances from each other,but rather change. Maybe something like MT 17 or 18 needs to be added to the setup?

(edit)
To use this principal, you need to co-ordinate the movement so the weights move toward the axel when it rotating the fastest, and away from the axel when it is rotating the slowest.

[Reticon]

wow, collaboration is a beautiful thing. I'm not sure this is just a simple height for width fallacy. It seems that he is trying to do something else.

[greendoor]

Practically all the scientists, mathematicians and armchair experts in Bessler's day didn't believe either - even in the face of a running wheel. Then - omitting 'observation' from the scientific process - they proceeded to develop an elaborate self-referencing mathematical model that reinforced their basic axiom that PM is impossible. Which is not entirely their own fault, as Bessler ensured his secret died with him.

But I believe that Bessler, with his religious convictions (he he - that sounded like religious felonies - but I digress) - was not a liar. Adept at misdirection, almost certainly. But I believe that he really did have a running wheel, and it really did run on gravity. Pequaide's theory & experiments give me the logical basis to accept that this is possible, and why the Energy maths have kept us crippled for so long.

A static analysis proves nothing. Software sims based on the same Energy maths proves nothing.

I'm not certain that Parametric Oscillation is in itself a means of creating energy. As far as I can tell, it is an althernative method to a flywheel that allows 'motion' to be efficiently stored and accumulated over time. (Sorry if my choice of words offends - i'm trying to avoid physics jargon for a good reason).

If the Force of gravity can be used for Acceleration (as opposed to Stressing the Earth) then we can get Mass to increase in Velocity and hence Energy (as we have defined it) which translates to Height.

They way I see it - this design of John's allows weights to fall at much slower than free-fall speed (as they are constrained by the wheel's low rpm. They overbalance the wheel, and as such they behave very like Pequaide's Atwood system. This means there is the potential for significantly more momentum to be acquired during the fall than is necessary to overcome the same force of gravity during a much faster rise.

One this is very certain: the people who strongly believe this could never work will become their own self-fufilling prophecy. And would probably not be able to accept the truth should anyone else succeed.

[John Collins]

Thanks for the comments guys both for and against (many more of them I think!)

I'm sorry if I come across as ruthlessly self-promoting its not my intention and any way if it had been then it didn't work!

As LIB said 'I still don't understand why everybody computes that as an overbalanced wheel, when, clearly John stated it is not.'

This is the crux of the matter (in my very humble opinion triplock :-) ) Does it seem to anyone here a potential avenue for further exploration to work on the idea that overbalancing of itself is not sufficient and perhaps look at the swinging hypothesis? In several professional translations of DT, Bessler says 'the weights gain force from their own swinging'; - does that not fit the idea of parametric oscillation perfectly?

Several of you are still assuming this design relies on overbalance but there is more than overbalancing to take account of, it is not the only issue.

Also despite your excellent animations they are all operating in a wrong way and you can see that quite clearly as they either fall at the wrong moment or are moving the wrong way and does anyone have a simulation that can take into account the effect of the 'pumping' action of the shortening pendulum?

Don't get me wrong I'm not criticising your attempts to simulate my design, I'm extremely grateful - I wouldn't even know where to start!

Sorry Ed but your criticism of my apparent lack of calculation is actually wrong, patronising and mildly irritating. You appear to have dismissed it without the slightest consideration. However I normally respect your opinion so this time I'll just dismiss your comment in the same way.

JC