An intricate systm of strings and weights!

[raj]

A wheel with weights, one weight on four strings, showing how weights would swing/hang:

Raj

[Silvertiger]

Raj...after all the years toiling on your projects, do you still not see the fundamental theme across all of your designs? In every single drawing you depict, the center of mass (or gravity) is always be below your axle. Yes, you can push it, swing it, and kick it, but after that energy abates, the wheel will always settle and bottom out. It will move only until the weights settle as close to the ground as possible. As long as that settling position is beneath the point of rotation, it won't work. Your current design is a pendulum.

Never stop trying, but try to avoid repeating the same procedure expecting different results. It will save you countless time and resources in the long run.

[Georg Künstler]

The center of gravity must not be above the center, it can, but it must not sit above.

If it is a pure gravity machine, then it must be above the center and stay there, oscillating.

If springs are included it can also be below the axle, but then the system is preloaded.

It has a reason why Bessler made in MT138 the heavier weights on top.
He only allowed a fall of some degrees and then catched the fall.
A clever impact swing by extracting energy to allow the reswing.

[Silvertiger]

Within the confines a Raj's designs, it must be above center, Georg. There are no exceptions. Consider this experiment: envision a wheel whereby a weight positioned at the zenith falls and rotates the wheel. While in rotation, before the weight reaches the bottom, you manually pick the weight up off the rim and set it back on top to continue the rotation. The weight MAY go below the axle, but if it does, it will never regain its initial height above the axle without help. This is due to the law of diminishing returns...so yes, it must remain above the axle (top-heavy). If it oscillates above the axle, it cannot do so vertically, for the same thing will occur: it will still bottom out, even though it is above the axle, which will occur only if: either the weight is tethered to the rim, or it is attached to weights below the axle that have more combined mass. It therefore cannot lose any height at ALL, assuming the weight of the mass to be constant.

[raj]

I am packing up my wheel search end of this year.

I know how my wheel is expected to behave.

In an asymmetric object, the center of gravity can be anywhere in that object.

My search for a wheel/s system is simple to describe:

The wheel/s system will start in a symmetric position, with the center of gravity in the center of the wheel.

Then upon a manual start, the wheel/s system will be in contimuous asymmetric positions through 360 degrees turn, with center of gravity of the wheel/s system fluctuating but always on the descending side of the wheel/s.

Raj

[Silvertiger]

Asymmetrical or not Raj, once placed in a rotating system, that system will move only until the shortest distance between the center of mass of that system and the center of mass of the earth has been achieved. If that distance is shorter than the distance from the center of the earth to your axle, that system will bottom out after all its angular momentum has abated.

Edit: You say you know how your wheel is expected to behave. Does it behave in the way you expect? Does it rotate of its own accord?

[raj]

Anybody who come up with a new idea, knows how he is expecting his idea to work.

Raj

[Silvertiger]

That's the thing...it isn't a new idea. You are reproducing lemons of the past. Over. And over. And over. They are all same. Some with strings. Others without. Little wheels. Big wheels. Little Wheels inside big wheels. Little wheels inside big wheels connected to weights with strings, etc...

You think they are different, but as an analogy, you are simply painting the same desert landscape from different views over and over again; each time expecting a rain forest to appear.

[raj]

Why are getting so hot under the collar?

It 's simpler to just IGNORE my LEMONS!

Go and find what you like in other (PASTURES) threads.

Raj

[Silvertiger]

Raj. You misunderstand...I'm not "hot" at all. If I didn't care about about the drive of others to succeed, and operated purely out of selfish greed, I would post nothing. I would not try to help or offer any advice of any kind. Just ask yourself if it is worth learning some physics - just basic entry level physics - if for one moment it could prevent you from repeating the same folly and then getting defensive every time someone tries to help you along and show you HOW and WHY they are all the same.

Here are some questions to broaden your box, and then I won't offer up any pointers after this:

1. Have you ever considered any alternative to using weights?
2. Have you considered forces created and influenced by gravity that might be exploited?
3. Have you considered any possibility of designing a weight that could be "programmed" to lose mass on its ascent, and gain mass on its descent?
4. Have you considered building an electric hybrid?
5. Can you think of other questions that you can ask of yourself to cause you to dream up possibilities that are NOT dependent on simple weights and strings and levers?

Btw, don't answer any of these questions to anyone but yourself. Good luck. :)

[raj]

Without any offence to your goodself, I would rather not see any reply from you.

If you think that I am wasting my time, referring to the same rotten lemons everytime. so LET ME BE!!!

You have been FAR from helpful to me in any way!!!

Raj

[Fletcher]

Raj. You misunderstand...I'm not "hot" at all. If I didn't care about about the drive of others to succeed, and operated purely out of selfish greed, I would post nothing. I would not try to help or offer any advice of any kind. Just ask yourself if it is worth learning some physics - just basic entry level physics - if for one moment it could prevent you from repeating the same folly and then getting defensive every time someone tries to help you along and show you HOW and WHY they are all the same.

Here are some questions to broaden your box, and then I won't offer up any pointers after this:

1. Have you ever considered any alternative to using weights?
2. Have you considered forces created and influenced by gravity that might be exploited?
3. Have you considered any possibility of designing a weight that could be "programmed" to lose mass on its ascent, and gain mass on its descent?
4. Have you considered building an electric hybrid?
5. Can you think of other questions that you can ask of yourself to cause you to dream up possibilities that are NOT dependent on simple weights and strings and levers?

Btw, don't answer any of these questions to anyone but yourself. Good luck. :)

I know where you are coming from ST (good intentions) but unfortunately everyone receives things at their own pace, in their own time and place.

FWIW I think Raj using simple weights, strings, and levers is on the the correct path, from what can be inferred from Bessler, IMO. I don't think there was anything else, except for some ancillary use of springs perhaps.

I was having a drink with some old friends on Saturday night. People who I had known since school days (fishing weekend). Over a beer Andy asked me for an update on the Bessler mystery (I forgot that we had talked about it years ago so was a little surprised he remembered). He said he'd spent zero time in the last 20 years thinking about Bessler and free-energy and was intrigued that I still pursued it. He asked for some sort of comparison that he would relate to. I said well imagine getting up every morning to do a days work. But at morning tea you do the cryptic puzzle in the paper. Except that everyday you do the same cryptic puzzle without ever completing it. Some days you seem to make progress but you can get stuck on a clue for months and years. And when you seem to be getting close to filling in all the clues the dang last clue just doesn't fit, and its back to the beginning to find where you went wrong. He looked at me like I was crazy and a masochist. His final comment was no cryptic puzzle was that hard and none is designed to not be solved. And therefore if Bessler was the real deal then it is solvable too. And that he hated cryptic puzzles, to which I agreed. No time for them lol.

Anyways, the point is that until the mystery is solved no one including Raj can ever know with any confidence that any well meaning advice from any person is actually helping or hindering. Therefore everyone earns the right to steer their own ship, even onto rocks.

[ME]

Fletcher, you are correct.
But it's a forum.

You have been FAR from helpful to me in any way!!!

Raj... It's not about you.
It's helpful for the rest.

I usually like to (try to) motivate my statements with more words...

Why are getting so hot under the collar?
It 's simpler to just IGNORE my LEMONS!

Simpler? Maybe. Ignore? Better not!

Can't speak for Silvertiger, so here I attempt to give my motivation about the "why".

Any information needs at least one counter point for the reader to become aware that there is a choice.
If only that we become aware that you are about to violate some law of physics. Which is especially handy to know in case you actually succeeded. It is considerate to others.

I understand it's not chill, but because you publish on a public forum then you can expect some counter-stuff..
And here is the idea:
This "counter-stuff" is basically required when the aim is to find truth.
And to facilitate truth the aim should actually be to encourage people to falsify a claim. Even better when you falsify your own claim, or simply proof it.
This should keep everyone on their toes, so that in a broader spectrum we can all filter what works, and what not, and perhaps learn what to try next. (ST said something similar).
Denying that process, is simply denying the truth-finding-process... such is not a personal attack.

Without proof or possible counter statement we should indeed just ignore any claim you make and consider it to be some sort of advertisement instead.
Such shouldn't be harmful if people wouldn't blindly accept those false "auto-rotating, out of balance, and continuous asymmetric position" claims.
Here we are on a forum where people blame "academic book knowledge" and all the rest of science.
While ironically 'they' happen to have read in that 'same' book about a possible applicable word like "conservation of energy" which they can't derive themselves, but should work differently than announced because PMM requires it.
Hence it's in my opinion very likely that your claims just get accepted blindly. of course when it fits the agenda.

So here two claims for others to match:

Then upon a manual start, the wheel/s system will be in continuous asymmetric positions through 360 degrees turn, with center of gravity of the wheel/s system fluctuating but always on the descending side of the wheel/s.

versus

Yes, you can push it, swing it, and kick it, but after that energy abates, the wheel will always settle and bottom out. It will move only until the weights settle as close to the ground as possible. As long as that settling position is beneath the point of rotation, it won't work. Your current design is a pendulum.

For both statements, ask "how" and "why".
Important to know. Whether it works or not.
So why not ask, calculate, discover with both outcomes in mind.

[raj]

I have NEVER made any CLAIM of a WORKING wheel.

So please, please STOP accusing me of MAKING false claims.
I resent that.

All I do, I DESCRIBE my ideas and back my thoughts with drawings, to SHOW you and the WORLD, how I envisage and expect my idea to work:

1. the wheel will look like this.
2. This would happen, then this would happen

An ALGORYTM of expected wheel/s and weights motions.

That's what a simulation WOULD be validating.

If 1 in a 100000000000000000+++++++, my concept of a wheel works, THEN I'll MAKE my first and only CLAIM.

So for NOW, LET me DWELL in my thought process.

THANK YOU,

My best regards to all you.

Raj

[raj]

???