Free Employees ?

[FunWithGravity2]

Why work ? That is my question. If you had a device that could produce a motive force at no expense and you lived in 1725 why would you work. I was contem[lating all the operations that you could have that would potentially allow you not to work. Lets be realistic about the device, it was obviously not going to pump thousands of gallons per day or dig holes do nay heavy lifting with the materials available to build it in a reasonable size. BUT. Why work. Could JB not have started a business that usaully required a mule, or servant to power a device, whether it was a thresher or a sharpener or some other device than normally required human or water power to operate.

I can't possibly imagine all the business' that may have been possible if you did not need to feed a team of mules or pay employees. Why would a person chose to continue to endure physical labour if they had a resource available to them to that could stop that. If your answer is that Bessler enjoyed hard work then i do not argue. But still why did he not use his machine AND hard work to do something that afforded him a better life at the time of his death.

Or was he, was the windmill something else?


Dave

[Bill_Mothershead]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that he did charge curious
people who wanted to see it demonstrated. Probably just
pocket change to make it worth his time.


He probably did not want his machine out in the open, in a production
environment. He carefully guarded it and was concerned that somebody
would examine the machine and thus, once his "secret" is known,
make him irrelevant.

[John Collins]

His dream was to open a non-denominational school and teach young people from disadvantaged backgrounds various trades - a creditable ambition. He needed the £20,000 to secure his dream.

JC

[DrWhat]

Maybe he was a fraud and we have all wasted our time. Regardless it is fun being on this site and discussing the wheel.

If one man was a able to achieve the impossible, why can't all of us clever people make the discovery in these modern times? Seems a bit strange to me.

Bit frustrating really. Yet hope springs eternal :-)

[nicbordeaux]

From Dr What : "If one man was a able to achieve the impossible, why can't all of us clever people make the discovery in these modern times?"

Because all the clever people (and all the dolts) are probably barking up the wrong tree. And as adults, have lost the capacity to move from one mindset to another. Some get stuck on OB wheels, some on Poponov oscilators.

[jim_mich]

If one man was a able to achieve the impossible, why can't all of us clever people make the discovery in these modern times? Seems a bit strange to me.

Might be because most everyone is searching for a way for gravity to turn a wheel and it is impossible for gravity alone to turn a wheel.

But suppose there is a way to harness MOTION to turn a wheel? There are instances where momentum is conserved while KE is increased. One weight must pass its momentum to a second weight. Thus one weight slows down as the other weight speeds up. Total momentum of the system remains unchanged. But the KE of the faster weight will quadruple as the KE of the slower weight drops to zero, thus doubling the total USABLE kinetic energy of the system. The trick is to harness this increase KE while maintaining total momentum and then do it again and again.

[FunWithGravity2]

His dream was to open a non-denominational school and teach young people from disadvantaged backgrounds various trades - a creditable ambition. He needed the £20,000 to secure his dream.

JC

Yes john i was aware, seems like the issue i have is that for a man that had the answer he seems to have fallen a little short of his "dream". I am just surprised that he was not able to find another way to utilize his gift.


Bill, i don't buy the exposure reason for not utilizing it, the machine could have been locked away to keep it away from prying eyes and a shaft to drive the apparatus of whatever device/business he wanted to run could have been run outside.

Don't get me wrong, i believe. I am just amazed that after all that building a wheel, secret codes ETC ETC that he was never able to do anything else. It kinda reminds me of those that think just discovering it will be enough. Did he really not have a plan other than sell it to the highest bidder. Maybe a lesson here.



Dave

[Tarsier79]

The trick is to harness this increase KE while maintaining total momentum and then do it again and again.

Has anyone here even got the first part of this equation... Regardless of gravity, has anyone achieved any mechanism capable of increasing KE? Even forgetting about the reset.

[FunWithGravity2]

Yes. Possibly 2 people. Can't say for sure whether JB figured it or not though.

[murilo]

The trick is to harness this increase KE while maintaining total momentum and then do it again and again.

Has anyone here even got the first part of this equation... Regardless of gravity, has anyone achieved any mechanism capable of increasing KE? Even forgetting about the reset.

Well... still working on this and deal KE is not a deal.
Best!
M

[rlortie]

murilo,

lately it appears you have been pushing your 'Avalanche drive' by repeatedly posting pictures of it. I certainly cannot condemn you for lack of patients and persistence.

You have been told by many that it will not work, so let me throw a couple of new questions to you for input. Please see the attached edited version pulled from your album.

EDIT: A chain is as strong as its weakest link, a rope is as weak as its strongest strand. Once the link is given slack in a chain it is no longer applying any tension.

Ralph

[murilo]

Ralph,
thanks for your words and thanks for not ignoring me at this time.

Many told me that my device will not work so as many also told that it will obviously turn and speed.

Nobody was able to tell me WHY NOT but many also can see why it will turn.

Most important, anyway, are the self confidence I have about my weird and 100% logic design. My persistence has nothing to see with anything else.

I'm afraid that you still have some points to reach about my conceptions... don't you think so?

I don't agree with your notes about the top side and left returning point but they show that you may have no other objections about the rest of device, isn't it?

The top side of avalanchedrive is the one that causes LESS discussions, since even a curved ramp can do the job... it's completely passive and dependent of main previous functions. When rising, the chain is completely erected and self sustained before the transference to contracted pile.

Never to forget that we have here a kind of diagram and not more than a sketch, so we'll not let some mechanic details be the killers of all the conception, ok?

All I need is a true computer modeling help! Nothing else!

Thanks again!
Best!
M

[jim_mich]

Sigh.

All I need is a true computer modeling help! Nothing else!

I did a full complete computer model, but you would not believe me or the computer!
I even explained why it will not work. but again you plug your ears and think I'm wrong.

I'll try one more time.

The left side has more weights and thus is heavier.
The right side has less weight and is thus lighter.

The heavier weight on the left side rests on the outer edge of the bottom sprocket.
The lighter weight on the right side rests out at the leveraged distance which includes the sprocket and the chain links which form a triangle.

The left side with its heavier weight and shorter leverage exactly balances the right side with its heavier weight and longer leverage. This design fails for the same reasons that all OOB wheel designs fail.

You have lots of weight on one side and very little weight on the other side, but the weights on the light side need to move much faster in order to maintain the far-apart spacing. This extra speed requires leveraging, which your wheel provides with its triangular shaped linkage resting on the bottom sprocket. But the maths force the leveraging of the slowly falling heavy weight to exactly match the fast rising lighter weight.

You have told me to just change the dimensions so as to make it work. But there is no way to fudge or adjust the ratios to make it work. No matter what dimensions used, it always balances, and thus will never self-rotate. This is what you fail to understand.

[Tarsier79]

Perhaps FWG and I could argue over which way its supposed to turn. Still, it wouldn't give it any more chance of working.

Murillo, if you believe it works so much, perhaps you should build it and find out once and for all.

[Fletcher]

Murilo .. jim_mich is correct - I don't want to go over old ground again but this might be a way for you to understand a little more about why it can't work the way you think it must.

Work Done = Force x Distance

Force = Mass x Acceleration N.B. acceleration is 'g'.

therefore WD = M x A x D [MAD]

'g' is constant for both sides therefore can be eliminated.

so WD left side [descending] = M1 x D1

& WD right side [ascending] = M2 x D2

N.B. M1 > M2 & D2 > D1 ... but ... M1.D1 = M2.D2

That is the leverage problem with ALL 'trading height for width' OOB wheels or arrangements such as yours.

P.S. M1D1 = M2D2 means in equilibrium i.e. the keel position [where it stops movement] - your arrangement would be unlikely to be in its keel position unless by extreme chance, so one side or other would have torque & it would move until it keeled where M1D1 = M2D2 & it stays at rest.