Balanced vs Unbalanced

[teokox]

Hi to All,

Balanced wheels require much less power for rotating than unbalanced wheels, and rotate longer too. This is a fact!

Then the question is:
Why all researchers in gravity wheels persist to searching for devices based on unbalanced wheels?

Human mind works in a logical way and then thinking to unbalanced wheels for a perpetual motion device could seem to be the better choice. Really is it the better choice?
Do not forget that Bessler got an unconventional mind!

Best regards,

tk

[Bill_Mothershead]

Oh, I get it now. You want us to invent the "balanced wheel".


Well, I think we already did that...it was easy.

In fact, I can't seem to recall any wheel that was really perpetually
un-balanced (and continuously resetting). Wheels that keel to
the bottom are "balanced"...it is just that they are in balance
at the bottom.

A wheel in balance has all its forces in balance,
ipso facto colombo oreo there is no force to move the wheel.

We got plenty of those...probably a few more to come.

Call me a radical idealist but I like motion...from actual forces...
unbalanced forces!!

[rasselas]

teokox,

If you browse the forums you'll see that various methodologies incorporating balanced-wheels have been proposed before, such as modified atwoods machines, flywheels, etc. While they incorporate a balanced wheel, they do involve imbalance somewhere. To take a simple, non-standard, example, consider two loosely connected rotating wheels, each going in different directions (like two pendulums swinging against each other)... together they are in (ie, they sum to) "balance", and yet individually they are each "out of balance", and so swing. So from a perspective you could say, "at all moments in-balance, at all moments im-balanced".

[jim_mich]

An electric motor is a weight-balanced wheel that experiences unbalanced magnetic forces. Bessler's last two wheels were weight-balanced when at rest. They were probably also weight-balanced while in motion, though of course we may never know for sure. A perpetual motion wheel that is weight-balanced would not be driven by gravity. But a perpetual motion wheel must be driven by some sort of unbalanced forces. If the wheel develops rotational force only when it is rotated then is seems that the motion of its weight is the source of the driving unbalanced force. Thus a wheel might be driven by unbalanced forces but not by unbalanced weights.

Saying that a wheel is driven by unbalanced weights is like saying that it is driven by unbalanced gravity. Gravity is constant on this Earth, thus one cannot have unbalanced gravity, thus one cannot have a gravity driven wheel where weights are continually out-of-balance, except if some force other than gravity causes movement of the weights.

We need to look for motion that causes unbalanced forces, where weights moving in one direction produce greater forces than when they move back in the opposite directs. This would produce unsymmetrical parametric oscillation.

[Grimer]

... But a perpetual motion wheel must be driven by some sort of unbalanced forces. ....

Agreed, but this unbalance can be at a high derivative of position.

Analysis of Variance provides a good model for thinking about this.

With a simple two level analysis popularly known as Variance within and between batches one can have a significant variance within batches co-existing with a zero variance between batches. This case is very familiar to drivers who appreciate that static balance of a wheel can co-exist with dynamic unbalance.

But variance can exist at many levels. If we take a three level instead of the simple two level case then we can see that we can have zero variance at the first two levels but any amount of variance at the third level. Variance within the individual components of the batch in other words.

[rasselas]

I very much enjoy and appreciate your response Jim. You said it very well, & likewise I like your differentiation between weight and force.

I am, though, curious as to your interpretation of "one side is full, the other is empty" [via Bessler]? And also concerning the first two wheels which would fall without any initial rotational impetus?

[jim_mich]

The early uni-directional wheels turned because they were initially OOB. But such OOB by itself is not self-sustaining. Also, they were tied off, supposedly to keep them from rotating. My opinion is that if these wheels had been allowed to rotate very slowly by hand, we would have found that they had dead spots where they would have sat still and not turned. We all know that when weights rise and fall within a wheel that it is like a pendulum that goes over the top. The only energy lost is from friction. Suppose these wheels had 4 mechanisms which produced eight motions each rotation. This would have produced 8 dead spots. But each dead spot would have been only about 22.5 degrees where the weights needed lifting while there was 22.5 degrees where they produced rotation.

Suppose that each time these uni-directional wheels were stopped that the inertia of the weights swung them forward thus presetting them OOB greater than the 22.5 degrees? Say maybe close to 25 or 30 degrees? This initial OOB was enough to start the wheel rotating. Then the motion of the wheel and weights caused an increase of force and energy within the wheel carrying it past the first dead-spot. The wheel then continually picked up speed until it reach its optimum velocity, which was the natural oscillation frequency of the weights as they moved back and forth within the rotating wheel.

There is the story about the wheel coming to a stop, supposedly by itself. I've not looked deeply into this story, but think it was probably the early uni-directional wheel, which Bessler let people start and stop, else a stopped wheel would not have meant much if it were the bi-directional wheels. The wheel was probably slowed down slowly or allowed to start up very slowly such that the weights did not get preset. Bessler's solution was simply to give the wheel a push start, much like he did with his later bi-directional wheels.


Was not Bessler's statement of "One side is full, the other is empty" a quote by Bessler of what Wagner had stated? Did Bessler imply that this statement described his wheels, or was it simply Bessler quoting Wagner's statement?

[barksalot]

If Jim is right about it being a quote, then it seems like bessler confirms it as true when he says, as it should be.

Maybe ( as it should be ) is part of the quote he is quoting. But it sounds to me as if he is adding his own two cents worth.

I do not have any of the publications on bessler so I have to rely on what is posted here at the forum.

[Ed]

I think you guys are thinking of a line from the chapter 46 metaphors in AP, in which Bessler was not quoting anyone.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... =3516#3516

[pequaide]

I think most of us start with balanced wheels. My largest was about 40 kilograms, and most of the mass was on the rim. When an imbalanced force (9.81 newtons per kilogram) is placed on the rim or hung from the circumference the wheel experiences an F = ma relationship for acceleration.

If the mass of the balanced wheel is much larger than the mass used for the imbalanced force then the time over which the force acts on the wheel is large. The momentum produced is also large. This is a gravitational acceleration so the motion is produced by gravity.

All the motion of the massive wheel can then be quickly transferred to the smaller imbalanced mass. This transfer of momentum (Law of Conservation of Momentum) gives the imbalanced mass a large velocity. When the smaller mass has all the motion it can be released from the stopped wheel. You can arrange the direction of the release to be up. The energy of the small mass will allow it to travel higher than what it was dropped. The input force is gravity. And the time over which the force acts is the same for the fall and the rise, but the distance up greatly changes.

I don’t think I agree with your opening statement. “Balanced wheels require much less power for rotating than unbalanced wheels, and rotate longer too. This is a fact!

If the two wheels have the same mass that is distributed the same distance from the point of rotation then the force needed to rotate the wheels will be the same whether they are balanced or imbalanced. Yes it is hard to bring the imbalance to the top but it is that much easier to take the imbalance to the bottom. Let the wheels rotate in a horizontal plane; this may make this easier to see.

[barksalot]

Thanks Ed

I think I remember reading that once.

That just shows how twisted our assumptions can become.