PM "acrobatics"...

[iacob alex]

.....or,an easy way to perceive an "exit" ,for a well known thinking up "labyrinth" (I am reffering to the very old perpetuum mobile problem/the engineer's "dream " machine...) ,is to simplify,to start with a plain game,as that you can regard at:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_5z3VVqoJk&feature=related

You can notice: a fucrum,a bar/lever and an acrobat...nothing more.

If you replace the acrobat ,with a self-motion "something" ,due to gravity and inertia ,you have a starting point to develop your own design.

Science is nothing but perception/Plato...a "gratuitous" relation with reality, for all natural creatures!

All the best! / Alex

[Tarsier79]

if you replace the acrobat with something self moving, why do you need the lever and weight?

[iacob alex]

Hi !

The lever is the rotating weight,the acrobat is the rotating and translating weight...this is the minimum minimorum image (theoretical abstracts ).

We have to do only one step:to replace the motion of the acrobat with "someting" equivalent (translating to and fro on the arm of the lever).

All the best! / Alex

[Tarsier79]

No, I think the minimum is the acrobat and a generator.

The acrobat, lever and weight is the equivalent of a "hampster wheel" mechanism. overcomplicated to do the same amount of work the acrobat can perform by himself.

If you really want the lever, you can add that too, but if you have played with wheel mechanisms, you will see the weight is also an unnecessary extra.

[iacob alex]

Hi Tarsier !

I respect your opinion and I have no additional comments.

Abstracts is a minimal scientific language,that help us to understand the "prime line" of something...the "skeleton".

It is conceived apart from any concrete realities or specific object.

If you see a "hampster wheel" only...it's your point of view.

In this manner,our dialogue is unserviceable..sorry.

I wish you success on your "tracK"!

All the best ! / Alex

[Tarsier79]

From JCs AP:

  Dear readers, you can discover, if you stay to take the trouble, a
  rich wisdom in Borlach's writings! Did you know, for example, that
  a mill is not a Primum Mobile? Yes, he tries to teach educated
  people things that children know before they go to school. What
  sort of brain could dream up such fanciful ideas? But the point is,
  my invention is not fanciful - I haven't suddenly come up with an
  unheard-of form of matter; rather, I have invented something new
  from commonplace materials.



Jacob

You seem a reasonably intelligent person. I don't see the problem of dialogue. As for my opinion, I believe it is valid and correct.

Studying the lever and distribution of masses is very important to understanding how leverage acts on a wheel. When you look at the acrobat in the above clip, he is climbing the inside of his wheel, he always climbs up, and this is the case whether he is on the inside or outside of the wheel. He is lifting mass in the system, making the wheel rotate. The position of his wheel on the lever is merely to provide a spectacle for the audience.

If you redistribute the mass on the "wheel of death" so that the acrobat/hamster is in the centre, with two weighted levers protruding at 180 degrees, the torque supplied by the performer will be the same, depending how much effort he puts in. The wheel will accelerate at the same speed if its inertia is maintained in the design. So regardless of if your hampsterwheel is of classic design, or attached to a lever, there is no mechanical advantage, only advantages in simplicity of design. Of course there will be different inertial forces acting on the performer, depending where on the wheel he is, which will have some effect.

The method for lifting the weight, irrespective of design is the missing piece of the puzzle in a lever/wheel. People advancing their knowledge in gravity systems, will eventually understand that merely shifting weight horizontally, or letting it fall under the force of gravity will never result in sustained rotation without the addition of what Bessler calls a "Prime Mover". I am sure many have different ways of progressing in this journey in the search for this phenomenon. The method I have chosen, is to examine each principle and how it is supposed to give us the desired effect. Measure and calculate if it does that, ruling it out for yourself, then searching for the next theory to explore, hopefully not getting stuck on a single unworkable solution for many years.

So, from your posts, it seems you wish to say something profound. I have a suggestion. Regardless of the mechanism: Hampster wheel of death, Ironman perpetual sticks, overbalancing see-saw.... What is the possible "Prime Mover"?

[Rufus Gartz]

iacob,

Examine how the the "feathered paddlewheel" or "feathering paddlewheel" works. It may give you an idea how to move the "acrobat" or weight in and out at the end of the lever. Multiply that by 8 to 12 arms instead of the counterweights. You might have a chance that it would be OOB.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcHISHYeEjc

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/attach ... l-1890.pdf

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/attach ... lation.pdf

http://www.hsomerville.com/meccano/Paddlewheel.htm

http://www.paddleducks.co.uk/smf/

http://books.google.com/books?id=avcCyV ... #PPA477,M1

[Tarsier79]

Rufus,

Could you do me a favour and please read my above post?...... Prime mover...Lifting weight... etc.

[Rufus Gartz]

Tarsier,

I offered my suggestions to the starter of this thread.... namely Alex Iacob.

Please do not try to stifle discussion on an alternative to your ideas. That is why you start your own thread for your own ideas. That is where you can expound your concepts and where others can disagree with those concepts. BUT keep it focused on what that thread is already discussing.

It is very impolite to attempt to hijack someone else's thread.

I do not mean to be offensive but this is Alex Iacob's thread and not yours.

[Tarsier79]

My apologies if you are offended. I am tired and frustrated. Actually, my response is related to Alex's thread:

Although I disagree with some of alex's conclusions, he is correct in the assumption that the acrobat is required. The acrobat and his input of energy is the fundamental component that makes this particular wheel revolve, just as a paddleboat requires an engine to propell the ship forward.

If it is not the engine, perhaps you can enlightem us as to what part of the feathered paddlewheel can be likened to the acrobat in his wheel of death. I also would like to see Jacobs response to your suggesting a simple OB could spring into perpetual motion.

I am foolish to think most people here are on the same page, something that seems so logical to me (and I hope others) can be completely disregarded by others. Everyone does learn at their own pace. And you are right, I did get off track. Anyway, the point I was initially trying to make, is that this isn't the minimum requirements for a wheel, there are a number of components in the wheel of death can be removed. It will operate differently, but will still operate. Funnily enough the minimum number of components to the wheel is nearly irrelevant to the power it could produce.

[iacob alex]

....topic is an allegory,a description of a possible PM/gravity power collector under the image of a circus "Wheel of Death".

As you see,the wheel is in fact...a lever.

Here ,I said: let's replace the acrobat with "something" equivalent,as simple as possible to play gravity "pressing" and inertia "storage".

From the history of PM "folklore",we know the hinged end of the arm...

The feeling of wonder makes us to open "the eyes of knowledge".

All the best! / Alex

[iacob alex]

....this time,a desk toy & music ,maybe can help us to imagine a possible simplicity ,related to an easy test to obtain self-motion ,due to gravity and inertia,at:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou6U1O57o2k&feature=related

Science and art belongs to the same world...

All the best! / Alex

[Unbalanced]

@jacob alex @Rufus Gartz

Tarsier79 stated:

if you replace the acrobat with something self moving, why do you need the lever and weight?

This is the crux, this is a simple and very important question. Whether your beams are very nearly balanced (as in the videos that are offered as examples) or another mechanism is utilized, unless the mass is able to lift itself (such as the acrobat is lifting himself) then the end result will be the same, balance or zero net gain.

An external force (such as gravity) acts upon every aspect of these designs, so what is clearly wanting is an additional, internal force of nature, that acts to counter (or augment) this external force of gravity, upon at least half of this closed system, in order to lift the mass back up, the "prime mover." There are forces that could possibly be utilized, such as buoyancy, magnetism, precession or other such force that could feasibly be applied selectively, i.e. whose influence is only effecting those weights that are ascending or for that matter, whose influence is only effecting those weights that are descending.

If we concentrate on how such an "internal force" can be applied within the confines of Bessler's designs and at the velocity he realized, then we will be well down the road to replicating his successes.

Edited for clarity

[honza]

Hi everybody,
When watching the clip - the energy input provided by the acrobat felt to me much lees then I expected to be needed to rotate the system (firstly the rise in the potential energy and then the kinetic energy of the rotating mass on top of it).
Of course my feelings can be misguiding me, however, the way the energy is supplied to this system apears to be similar to a system patented by Martin N. Leibowitz who found that if an electric motor is placed in the orbit of a rotated object the actual energy required for accelerating the rotation of the object rises only lineary with RPM (whereas when rotating it from the center of the object the energy input rises exponentially with RPM).

I have come across verification claims on the web.

http://www.patentgenius.com/image/6239524-3.html

[iacob alex]

.....this time,is a proposal to play yourself.

Take a look at :

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YdmveR-CXk&feature=related.

It rotates aleatory,due to a magnetic coupling and a battery.

Try to find a restrictive solution for rotation: a one-way,only and without any "magneto-electric help"...just a starting push.

Then imagine a self-rotation due to gravity and inertia,only !

All the best! / Alex