A Motion Machine

[rasselasss]

..The best laid plans of men and mice..........turning theory into reality can be difficult....ie..it took hours to get the spring pressure on the ratchet correct so that it would "glide"and not dominate "the wheel".....progressing slowly(very).....Good Luck.

[bluesgtr44]

Good luck indeed!


Steve

[rasselasss]

Being of a stubborn nature (cantankerous old git)and being a novice at "gravity motion machines"i know i make the common errors even to the point of ridicule but i have to" see"an idea to its conclusion,and i learn along the way....I am familiar with the limitions and failings of springs and ratchets and truthfully knew the end game.........The two photos show the mech.turning at different stages,..i adjusted the weights on the lever arm of the ratchet to return to the ratchet centre on the "up"(sliding)and on the "down"motion(extending)...this achieved 2-3 turns of motion before stoppiing .....i then added a crude 2nd wheel with the same "swastika"spoke design as my wheel....timing it so to extend the turning moment...this gave 4-6 turns depending on position......The two lessons learned (1)...the flat preloaded spring would exhaust itself(as i knew)..(2)...The nature of a ratchet "eats energy"even with a "stop"fitted the delicate throw of the wheel being easily absorbed ...lift a bicycle rear wheel turn it it with the pedal crank,release ,and watch the pedal and crank rotate in the opposite direction......I now look at a "pendulum"solution and possibly the eccentric cam idea with and without a ratchet .....

[Unbalanced]

Rasselasss:

The beauty of this Bessler "club" is that it is open to everyone who decides to spend the time to walk down this treacherous path. Like many clubs there is a hazing period but the real beauty here is that the hazing is always self imposed. I don't know of any new member, myself included, who has not entered here with the proclamation of having found the solution.

The key is in not getting too depressed when those tenacious and robust "laws of nature" rear their ugly, entropic head.

Pick up the pieces, turn on your discerning mind, and begin again.

I find that my light is brightest just after it has been dimmed the most by some failure in some overlooked aspect in one of my designs.

All best regards, Curtis

[murilo]

Curtis,
you sent clever phrases in above statement.
Just my 2 cents:
- I was the 20th member to join this new forum.
- up to today, I repeat - and challenge - to have a project and ideas that WILL speed and turn.
- I don't mean about a funny weird wheel that will keep spinning forever, but I mean my project will be a source of free/cold energy.
- the fact of this puzzle is still on, doesn't means that it's unworkable but that I'm still alone in a really huge deal!
Best!
M

[Unbalanced]

Good Day Rasselasss,

I have experimented a great deal with ratchets and pendulums and the
rear wheel from a one-speed bicycle with a weight on the rim works great.

The freewheel clutch which grabs in only one direction might be just the ticket for replacing that friction hungry ratchet mechanism you have had problems with.

Figuring out how (and with what energy source) to pulse your pendulum may turn out to be key.

As well I have a tried fixing a pendulum arm to the gears of a rear bicycle wheel so that it spins the wheel while swinging in only one direction. Not certain how you might incorporate that into your design though.

The fun is in the tinkering but (for me) it always comes back to that devil phrase, "no energy in, no energy out."

Good luck to you.

[rasselasss]

Unbalanced.i appreciate that info....Thanks.

[rasselasss]

I found it difficult to disgard a lifetime of conventional engineering practice ie.powered products,improving by development.... and the "switchover"to "gravity motion" ideas , truthfully my thoughts assumed the "wheel"as the way to go to achieve G.M but maybe we should train our thoughts backwards,the wheel thinking last...........Iacob alex's ,idea of the "lever"as" king"puts a different slant to my line of thought....my reasoning could be way out....but lets look at the simple mechanics of a windscreen(windshield)wiper mechanism ...only in reverse the spindles of the wipers driven by pendulums ...the simple wheel box mech. and the archimedes(strangely enough)flexible drive to turn the wheel mechanism.....the problems i see are the pendulum(s)...how to keep them going(so to speak)....its just a thought .

[rasselasss]

This is "off the wall"so to speak....when i came on this Forum with my idea ....i have to ask myself,WHY did i assume "Bessler's Wheel"had to have spokes with moving weights or other to give overbalance to make the wheel do work?......What If the wheel was just "a heavy wheel"and the weights Bessler exhibited to the observers were just fixed to the perimeter of the wheel to make it heavier?... remember Bessler was at top end of the smoke and mirrors brigade..... was the "lever idea "the mover of the wheel?...we know a heavy wheel when it gets moving produces massive power to lift or whatever....we're not positive what the mover was but why do we presume that it was to do with overbalance etc.....could the answer be as Iacob Alex suggests the"lever solution"....its a different way to look for an answer to this wheel but i believe it requires serious consideration by us all.

[rasselasss]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laxey_Wheel

[rasselasss]

For those who like a "big wheel"....this is a working tourist attraction only....when the water supply is cut off it still turns 10 times....if it was a dead stop it would demolish most of the building.....do any of you have any links to structures like this i would be interested if you posted the links...Thanks

[Unbalanced]

rasselasss writes:

why do we presume that it was to do with overbalance

There seems to be scant direct clues to lead us to the assumption that Bessler's wheel was moved by means of overbalance. The word preponderance in his (translated) quote, below, lends some credence to the belief that one side of the wheel held the greater amount of weight. As does the quote, "must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."

I believe the more important of his statements is that his weights could never find equilibrium. This is definitely essential.

"it runs according to 'preponderance', and turns everything else along with it; as long as its materials shall endure, it will revolve of its own accord." - pg 363

"anyone who wants can go on about the wonderful doings of these weights, alternately gravitating to the center and climbing back up again, for I can't put the matter more clearly." - pg 295

"gravitating to the center" leads many to believe these weights were gravitating from one side or the other thus hinting at overbalance. They could have been gravitating from the top or bottom of center.

these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."

This and the fact that most of the MT drawings show OOB devises that don't work by themselves.

[Unbalanced]

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... vity_Motor

[Fletcher]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/lever-info.htm

How Levers Work

Some levers reduce the force needed to move weights. They do this by increasing the distance through which the force acts. For example, a 1-kilogram force acting through a distance of 3 meters can move a 3-kilogram weight 1 meter, if friction is ignored. Speed is lost in a lever of this kind. The weight moves only 1/3 as fast as the force arm.

In other levers speed is increased by applying the force through a shorter distance than the resistance is moved. This requires a proportional increase of force. When a bat is swung, for example, the end of the bat moves faster than the hands, but greater force is needed to swing the bat than is needed to move the hands alone.

The Law of Levers

Force (F) multiplied by the length of the force arm (Af) is equal to the resistance (R) multiplied by the length of the resistance arm (Ar). This can be stated as follows:

F X Af = R X Ar

This formula makes it possible to calculate how much force must be applied to a given lever to move a certain resistance. For example: What force must be applied to a 3-meter force arm to move a 3-kilogram weight on a 2-meter resistance arm?

Answer:

F X 3 = 3 X 2

3F = 6

F = 2

A force of 2 kilograms balances the 3-kilogram weight. To move the weight a force greater than 2 kilograms is required.

The formula can also be used to calculate the length of the force arm required to move a given resistance with a given amount of force. For example: How long must the force arm be if the force is 5 kilograms, the resistance is 15 kilograms, and the resistance arm is 2 meters long?

Answer:

5 X Af = 15 X ?

5Af = 30

Af = 6

A 6-meter force arm is needed to balance the resistance. To move the resistance with the same force requires a longer force arm.

Levers are force multipliers - they are not energy multipliers - therefore the Conservation of Energy Law [CoE] applies in all mechanical cases of manipulation by lever alone in a gravity field.

In a wheel environment, say, Work Done in Joules of energy exactly equals Potential Energy gain of a vertically shifted mass.

IOW's F1 x D1 [joules] = f2 x d2 [joules] n.b. power is the rate of doing Work - just because a large force, short arm, can cause a mass to gain high velocity on a longer arm does not mean that there is an energy inequality.

The lever relationship is where force is inverse to fulcrum distance - because it is not a squared or inversely squared relationship, but an inverse relationship [to the power of 1], then there can be no energy gain by using mechanical levers alone, in a gravity field.

[Fletcher]

Thank you Curtis for your input prior to mine - it added the context.

Bessler wanted to solve the quandary of the overbalanced PMM.

He documented many unworkable ideas & builds in his unpublished MT - he described in carefully crafted words in his publications how his wheels achieved self sustaining motion & torque [rotational force] - these point out quite candidly that in some of his wheels the weights were quickly lifted back up; thus resetting the overbalance & torque requirement for continued rotation - his wheels apparently weren't plagued by energy losses robbing the wheel of momentum & Rotational Kinetic Energy which would eventually result in the wheel finding the stopped keeling position i.e. position of zero torque & lowest Potential Energy, the PQ as he put it - they did have ordinary system losses, just as every other, but the energy was miraculously 'topped up' from an undisclosed source.

His words give the strong impression that for some of his wheels he did indeed devise a means of keeping a weight shifting mechanical wheel in constant motion by overbalance - obviously part of his mechanisms were masses that changed radius & location within the wheel - with a shift in CoM of the wheel away from the Center of Rotation [the axle] then a constant torque source due gravity is possible.

However gravity can not replenish the Potential Energy of the system entirely, due to frictional losses & noise etc - the law of levers can only multiply a force like gravity, it cannot increase the energy quotient of the system - for his wheels to replenish system losses to friction etc & do external Work [joules liberated from the system] then energy had to be introduced to the system to balance the Conservation of Energy [CoE] equation.

IMO something else in addition to gravity's influence on weights was employed to quickly hoist weights at the appropriate time to reset the systems Potential Energy & torque compliment - IOW's the system was an overbalance principle augmented by additional energy to reposition weights to continue the overbalance - that force could have been direct in its application or indirect, such as to load a spring to quickly lift a weight, upon release - what 'loaded' the spring is the mystery as gravity can not load it enough, on its own.