There are two other clues to cracking Bessler's code which I left out mainly because I can't draw them.
One additional clue is that the perimeter had warped boards where the weights hit them. As drawn here the arrows do not reach the perimeter boards. If the arrows where any longer they would pass through the central axis at 9 O'clock. If the central axis was hollow as others suggest then the weights could freely swing through the center. At this time I cannot think of an engineering solution to allow for this.
A second clue that Bessler mentions is the use of springs. My design as drawn has no springs. I was thinking rather then ridgedly attaching the weights to the tip of the arrows they would be free to pivet with a spring like action. This would allow the weights to swing forward and hit the boards at 3 O'clock or just before. The springs would then streach down possibly hitting the boards again at the 5 O'clock position and bounce back with near weightlessness as they passed 6 O'clock. The springs would counteract the secondary toques and amplify the main rotation of the wheel.
You seem oblivious to the fact that I have already produced a CAD model that indicates that the types of designs you are proposing are completely unworkable. This detail will not change in any way by a change in the manner in which you connect the 12 individual rotating "hour" weights to the wheel's central axle. If you want to get one of these work, then you will need to find a way to make the weights rotate without having to have them in contact with each other or with that central gear.
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Oblivious, Ken. I expected more out of you than to resort to an Ad Hominen. Attack the Idea not its' presenter.
No I am not oblivious. I am altering my design to your earlier critique. The new design with springs would cause periodic disconnect with the central wheel through the rebounding weightlessness of the weights. Your old CAD model does not take into acount a periodic weightlessness of the spring action in the new design. I still beleive I am on the right track to discovering Bessler's secret.
There are other clues which tell me I am on the right trail as well. A poster on another forum pointed out that the motion of this design circumscribles a fractal 'Apfelmännchen.' This fractal may discribe hidden counter torques your CAD model would be incapable of interpreting.
My model could actually be creating infinite torques the way a fractal produces infinite resolution. From a thermodynamics perspective perpetual motion is not possible except at the very smallest scales such as the perpetual motion of electrons around atoms. Understanding perpetual motion means throwing out everything you thought you knew about physics and accepting new realities such as sacred geometry, imaginary mathematics, and radical concepts of infinite energy.
AgingYoung, no I am not a troll but I suppose if Bessler were alive today you would call him a troll too.
ps edit: The idea that you've just recently began to read about Bessler (Well this is the first I have ever even heard of Bessler.) then you come out with, 'I cracked the code of Bessler last night.' is preposterous. It makes no difference to me. I suspect you're a born again skeptic having a little fun.
Working Model 2D
[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.
If you have something to say to me you can post it on the open forum. If I've slandered you please quote me. In my opinion your not believable. It's also my opinion that your idea for a wheel lacks any sound reasoning or principle. The principle of sacred geometry is an emotional appeal; there's nothing sound in it.
On a practical note I think that the friction in your idea is so large as to make it not work. It's also my opinion that if this problem could be solved with simple machines (levers, inclined planes, etc) it would have already been solved. You mentioned an improvement to your design by allowing weights to move independently of the axle yet I still don't think it's a viable design. In my opinion the reason for needing weight to move independently of the axle is that (1) if it's connected at all times then the axle is the equal sign in the equation causing all actions to have equal and opposite reactions and (2) you can't cause the acceleration of that weight to different moments giving them more or less torque on the axle.
I've modeled some interesting ideas. One idea is 'virtual' acceleration or moving a mass faster than it's moving. The idea that I've put on hold is such a novel way of looking at an out of balanced wheel I've yet to hear anyone talk about it. My current build is the concept of 'virtual' mass; the effect of the mass yet not nearly as much mass as would be needed for that effect.
If you want a flossed opinion I'll have to leave that to someone else yet if you want my honest opinion that's about all I have to give. Maybe I need an editor.
Gene
Working Model 2D
[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.
And another post. You have some very strange ideas. I don't think they have merit but you could say the same about my ideas. I don't think there's any profit in quibbling over ideas but I do find one of your thoughts way off the mark. Ken took the time to model your clock. Rather than thank him for his time you suggested he was calling you names. One of the things I notice about Ken is that he tenaciously holds to his views but he never calls people names. He gave you a professional assessment of your idea and you handed it back to him and called it 'his old cad model'. It's your model that he made for you. You should have thanked him.
Gene
Working Model 2D
[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.
That's a nice design & drawing you have posted. I have a suggestion that may help it. Would it be possible to reduce the "friction" with all of the chains linked across the axle? You may be able to replacing all of the chains with a single chain running in a circle to link all of the weight lever arms and "hold them" in their fixed rotational positions. Then hook up a second chain that links it with the axle.
This may accomplish the same end result but in a simplier way with less friction.
Oblivious, Ken. I expected more out of you than to resort to an Ad Hominen
It was not my intention to attack you personally with my "oblivious" remark. Actually, the word just means "forgetful" and I could be accused of it myself many times since I joined this board. Actually, I used it because, after I had posted a carefully made WM2D model that showed the Hour Weight Wheel design was unworkable, you then proceeded to post another such design that would have been equally unworkable.
Anyway, if you are working on an alternative design, then maybe you'll find something that can work after all. The problem with using the "clues" given in the Bessler literature is that everybody tends to see something a little bit different in them. Sooner or later, one of us is going to find a design that does work.
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
I have been at this for about five years, but only seriously for the last 18 months. Remodeling my house for the last 9 months has put building wheels on hold. When I was very young my dad told me about perpetual motion, and how it has never been achieved. At that young age, I found that to be a challenge that I would someday attempt.
I have built 5 prototypes, and none of them work. From each one, I learned WHY it did not work. I have learned a lot about rotation, inertia, and leverage. I have learned that the tangent function in Filemaker Pro 6 does not work when I was building as table of measurment points. I have also learned a few things from reading this board over the last 2 years.
OK, so why am I posting now? I like this particular topic. The reason why I like it is it is right along the lines of what is working for me, plus I read some comment about someone being oblivious, and a few days ago read a request for "...Help us! ...you know who you are..."
I will not directly give away my ideas. I would rather play and be the one to patent MY ideas. In my mind I feel that I may even accidentally give some stuff away, but for as abstract as this whole concept is, perhaps not. For the ideas presented in this topic so far: First of all, I have found springs to be of no help. I find that they are great for producing counter-torque. But, of course, there is much to be explored. I also do not see a dog. I see knick-knacks but no toys.
From my last prototype, I had levers that stretched across the wheel in an open-axle concept. It failed. After a few days, I went out, looked at the wheel and asked myself - "What CAN a lever do?". The answer popped in immediately. I thought to myself that if cannot figure out how to keep one side of the wheel heavier, then I will try to keep it balanced 100% of the time. The model of this EXACT idea did not work, but led me on to my current models. I still do not know how to use the hammers, or who needs to weild them. My hammers most likely failed because they were attached to springs.
Since I do not time to build, I have been playing with W2MD quite a bit. I have made several designs that run until the internal limit is reached (any idea how to turn this feature off?) with just a slight initial push. I have raised and lowered the amount of wieght on the same wheel, and with a little tinkering have been able to make any amount of weight work. I do not think the size matters, but the proportions. As of last night I have 2 that are self-starting. One solid construction goes forever, and the other is a bouncy one that runs about 30 turns before it reverses. I find W2MD to be very buggy, but also extremely helpful. I plan to build again in the springtime. I keep learning more and more every day, so there is no rush to build out in the cold. I plan to integrate my best idea at that time with my third prototype (isn't that interesting?), because if I start the wheel slow, it continues slow. If I start it fast, it continues fast. Adding prototype number three will give it a good swift kick within one rotation with vitually no counter-torque (maybe this is my hammer, and my attack against friction). I cannot possbly model this because of W2MD's limitations, but I think I can put the two ideas together because I found I can attach an out-of-balance heavy weight to the edge of my current models and they keep turning (this testing actually turned them into self-starters).
My heart is actually racing right now. I have seen members of this board who play nice, and others that do not. I refuse to be pulled into any type of emotional arguments, for it bothers me when I have to waste time reading this stuff. I wish to continue progressing in a scientific manner. I will also refuse to acknowlege any personal attacks - In fact, this will make me go away. I am extremely interested in finding out where this topic goes from here (and yes, if someones turns on a lightbulb in my head I will test it).
Spinner wrote:First of all, I have found springs to be of no help. I find that they are great for producing counter-torque. But, of course, there is much to be explored.
Yes, springs can produce counter-torque. There is something else that springs are good for. They are good for quickly moving a weight between two locations. We are all familiar with how a pendulum swings back and forth. It's swing speed is always constant. But a weight and spring can also oscillate. If the spring is very strong then the weight will move back and forth very fast. Once the spring is pre-stretched it needs no additional energy to keep the weight swinging back and forth, other than overcoming normal friction, etc. So if someone has a design that needs a weight to be moved between two locations real fast they might look into using a spring. Usually this would require the weight to be latched in each location until the time is right to swing to the other location. Ken always says that latching makes the wheel to complex, but what if he is wrong?
I have not purchased John's book. I have learned the most of this idea from http://www1.iwvisp.com/LA4Park/ and from this board. I believe there is a reference to a hair-pin trigger. I have no doubt that if I could incorporate this into the design it would be the hammer - but using a hammer like this, the only way I can picture it right now, would present the counter-torque issue. Now you know that I have made these models move without latches. I have played around with modeling ratchets (using springs), and the way I am modeling ratchets could also be used for modeling latches. The release could possibly be gravitational or from a strike. Maybe the release strike is the second hammer.
Oops. I saw it when I read it again (slower) - latching on both sides. This could have a very slight counter-torque if it bounced off of the catcher's mit or passes the latch with some room to snap back, but it may be insignificant compared to the transition. The spring would also be utlized for returning the weight back to its starting position at the proper time. Stretching it to its initial tension before the return would probably be helpful. A bi-directional hammer. This seems worth tinkering with, and may improve on the idea for my next model. In fact, thank you, this is what was missing.
I have a feeling that I will need to incorporate two or more models together to get the end result. I believe I have found the motion, but now I need the accelerator. I believe this is also what Bessler suggested.
for it bothers me when I have to waste time reading this stuff.
I've found skimming posts and at times entirely skipping whole sections to be helpful.
I like this particular topic. The reason why I like it is it is right along the lines of what is working for me,...
What do you see in Novus's clock that is working for you? The idea as I see it is an attempt to scrape minuscule amounts of mechanical advantage where ever they are all over the wheel and have them added in the form of torque at the axle. I don't think that's viable.
Gene
Working Model 2D
[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.
I am merely suggesting that this general concept is not a waste of time. What I see is the building block of what I found to spin in W2MD, in several configurations. This is in its earliest stages. Compared to my version, to start with, it is missing some things: a dog and its toys. I do not know what is in John's book, but the link I provided earlier is where my Bessler education started. He mentions a dog that knows how to play with its toys and knick knacks. I found the dog on accident when attempting to test a certain idea, and the dog does know how to play with its toys and knick knacks. It just knows. He also mentions a hammer which sometimes strikes directly and sometimes diffuse. My goal now is to find the hammer, because even if my model can continue to spin in the real world without it, I do not think it will accelerate until reaching a specific speed, but instead rotate at the speed of its initial push. I believe that a hammer which strikes with negligable counter-torque would provide the acceleration, and that acceleration would be limited by friction and the speed at which it strikes.
Does anyone have a good hammer? (This opens it up for some funny answers)
Ken is a very smart man. You may feel that if Ken's version did not work, it is a lost cause, but I want to point out that when I first modeled this concept about 2 months ago, and again exactly as shown by Novus, niether worked.
