His Secret Is In The Levers

[james.lindgard]

[quote="ME" The math is simple: things need to be slightly more.

For example, consider a pendulum stuck at 12 o'clock.
It needs some slight offset (N) to start moving clockwise or anti. Perhaps N=0.00001 degrees.
The pendulum will rotate (360-2*N) degrees at its mathematical best, before it reverses rotation.
Hence a lever needs an additional trick to induce an action which results in a gain of at least (2*N), no matter how the lever is partitioned.[/quote]

ME,
If what I described and is in Bessler's drawings works then a 2nd set of levers and weights can be added at 90°. This would allow for an over balanced weight to keep the wheel rotating while the 2 weights 90° to the axle are being lifted.
What people would need to understand is how offsetting levers allows for an over balance. This has to do with ratios. And ratios allow for leveraging and for using pulleys as well. This could make a build more complex.
Yet to test this principle, that'd be easy enough to do. It wouldn't require using moving weights but would need to be able to rotate. That's how I've done a lot of my research.

edited to correct grammar

[preoccupied]

Gravity cannot be determined to be conservative just by its constant strength and the inability to make a gravity driven wheel perpetually. What we are actually doing when we fall short of trying to make a perpetual motion machine is not failing to use a conservative force like gravity but instead failing to reuse a force that we cannot reach because as far left and right as we try to go we will never reach a point in gravity where it does not pull equally downward. We have to invent forces that are not connected to the axle to make any change to this lever balance. Which is why I think Jim_Mich has the right idea by trying to use a motion wheel in his design. I think that motion on a lever can pull against the body its in motion with, like an uneven oscillation pulling against the axle of the lever it's on. This is what I think is happening with the chain fountain and I disagree with the Cambridge University paper claiming it's hitting the beaker because it's being pulled on.

[james.lindgard]

@All,
Since this is something new, I will do my best to keep it simple.
10 in. lbs. = .11 n-m.
The attached drawing shows ratios of 2 to 1 and 3 to 1. In this instance the axle itself is considered a fulcrum. This is because the weight on the lever is moving in the opposite direction of the lever on the other side of the wheel. One side is moving up while the other side is moving down.
And if the weight's distance is 1r, then the 2 points on the lever near are 2r and 3r. This simply shows that the lever on the opposite side of the wheel moves more. And this means it will take less force to rotate the weight on the lever.
Since this force is less than the work the weight does when it drops, an over balance happens. It will take time for most people to understand this principle. I didn't figure it out over night and don't expect anyone to get it right away.
And with the 2 sets of weights being labeled A and B, this shows that when 2 weights work together their force is combined. With the 2 levers they perform work and with the 2 weights that are acted upon, they shift the balance of the wheel. I think keeping these 2 things separated will make it easier for everyone to understand what I'm discussing. And since Bessler did say his weights worked together, this is one way they can. And he also said that he had many pieces of lead around the outside or rim of his wheel. This also fits that clue.


Jim

[james.lindgard]

@All,
I switched the orientation to a clockwise rotation. With the lever on the left below 9 o'clock, it is out of balance. This is because it is not 180° opposite the lever on the right.
The drawing shows a simple way to see how much force is needed to account for the imbalance. And if the weights weigh 1 lb. each and the weight on the left is dropped 6 inches, this is 6 in. lbs. of work.
By either pulling with a scale or using weights, it can be seen if less than 6 in. lbs. of force allows for rotation. If so, then free work was just made available.


Jim

edited to clarify

[james.lindgard]

And when the test wheel is rotated 90° the maximum amount of force needed to rotate it will become known. Even a single lever could be used to show this. If you notice that when the opposing weight drops straight down how far out the lever at top left is ? This is where things stop working.
And leveraging should still apply to this. If the bottom of the wheel is pulled at a distance further from the axle then it will take less weight to over come the imbalance. And this is what this lever configuration allows for. This is because the weight doing the work is closer to the axle than it's fulcrum is.
And with another set of weights and levers at 90° there will always be an over balance.
I'll give you guys some time to think about this.

Jim

[Andyb]

FC 110 sounds perfect,James really crap at maths, seem to be getting worse at it as well ,have found a friend to help there ,saved me a build the other day ,so grateful,still working hard believe i may be on to some thing really good, ha time will tell, my fist approach to the maths is to measure accurately every 10 degrees and add each side up and see where your at, there are other forces in rotation which will add up to a greater turning torque ,but for starters that seems the best approach ,any advice here would be use full just remember i work with feel, maths is really not my field ,all the best Andyb.

[james.lindgard]

Andyb,
I just downloaded a trig calculator and trig table. They are helpful. With inch. lbs., that is a simple way of calculating force. If you notice, I only refer to inch lbs. when I am talking about something at a 90° right angle to gravity or straight up and down.
With how a lever is to the left of center when it's inline with gravity, trigonometry allows the extra force to be calculated. Then this can be expressed as in. lbs. of torque where the lever's fulcrum is. That's what helps to show offsetting levers allows for extra force.
And as Bessler said, his weights get their force from swinging. When you're looking at the attached picture Bessler drew, think about that and the offset.


Jim

edited to add 2nd image

[ME]

I just downloaded a trig calculator and trig table. They are helpful.

My advice: use a spreadsheet (LibreOffice-Calc, Microsoft-Excel). It automates repetitive manual math labor significantly.
Changing a single value could result in the recalculation of a whole sheet full of formula's, mighty handy if you ask me!

[james.lindgard]

@ME,
Is there any chance that you have either program? It does take time to learn how to use any program and if someone already knows how to use one, then if you or someone else would be willing to help in this way, I would appreciate it. It is as you said, changing a single value will change all other values.
And with this, it could show why 90° to the axle is important. The image shows the over balance to the right of the axle and the imbalance 90° to the over balance. It is this difference in force that would allow for perpetual motion if it exists.

Jim

edited to correct grammar
edited to add image of weights shifted 90° to the axle.

[ME]

It does take time to learn how to use any program and if someone already knows how to use one, then if you or someone else would be willing to help in this way, I would appreciate it. It is as you said, changing a single value will change all other values.

Yes, but it's time well spend. See new topic: Tech support/Spreadsheet introduction

[james.lindgard]

ME,
I have downloaded a basic spread sheet program. Microsft does have Excel online that allows for multiple users. That is something that would be useful in working with bellows or wheels with multiple weights.
I have saved your post and your example. It will take some time getting used to a new format.


Jim

[james.lindgard]

@All,
I will try to explain the basic math behind this design. In. lbs. does allow for a basic understanding. To convert in. lbs. from metric, just think of
(X * 2.54) * .454 kg. This will give an understanding of how much weight at what distance from the fulcrum.
The first step is to consider the angle of the lever from A to A. If the lever is 24 inches long and has shifted 6 inches, this is about 14.75°. It's Sin is .258.
At the moment I am assuming that 1 lb. * .258 = .258 * 16 = 4.1 ounces (oz.'s).
Why this matters is because of where the fulcrum is relative to the axle. The fulcrum is 12 in.'s from the axle so 12 * 4.1 oz.'s = 49.2 oz.'s. Divided by 16, it's 3.075 lbs. What this means is that when 2 weights are lifted 5 inches, then 1.925 in. lbs. of torque should be realized.
And with what ME suggested using a spread sheet, if this type of principle is demonstrated to work then using spread sheets would allow for fine tuning a design and that would be important as it would save a lot of work.
As for the initial 1 lb. mass of the weight, that is cancelled out by the opposing weight/lever combination.


Jim

[james.lindgard]

And there is a way ti increase the work that creates over balance. I've actually discussed it in here already. With this, the path (radius) the weight on an out of balance lever takes is 1/2 the length of the lever. And with Mt 26, using wheel weights will allow the weights to roll out further to perform work and then back in to conserve energy after performing work.


Jim

[james.lindgard]

@All,
With Mt 26, this is one weight weight wheels can be used to increase the force of levers when they perform work and then decreased their kinetic potential by moving inward. This could be where Bessler said as one weight moves toward the axle, another weight is moving away from it. Although I think when 2 weights are being lifted fits better. It does fit his drawing.
It might be possible to make an animated gif that would let everyone see about what the mechanics would look like as far as the motion of the weights go.

And if I can get a spread sheet set up like how ME showed then some calculations could be done to try and simulate an approximation of how fast everything would move.


Jim

[james.lindgard]

@All,
This is the design I will be discussing as to how levers allow for perpetual motion. And yes, scissors are levers too. Scissors can be used to make long levers that are both light and rigid. I think that is what Bessler did as well.
A1 and A2 designate 2 different sets of weights that work together. It allows for some extra work to be performed. The amount of extra work in this example is 150% as compared to 100%.
Then when the weights are retracted to their inner position, they should require only 1/3 the work that they perform to reset. It will cost some energy to move the weights to their inner position. Momentum from the wheel itself as well as gravity can be used.
By using scissored levers, gravity can assist the retraction mechanism. And as far as spread sheets go, I will probably be hoping that ME will help me set one up for use with this model. I have just downloaded Open Office so will spend the weekend becoming familiar with it's spread sheets.


Jim

p.s., if anyone is wondering, the weights that shift to create over balance can be "hidden" behind a spoke. It's kind of a visual thing.
And I am using a paint program. Scaling is possible using pixels and as I need to, I can add more detail as far as the mechanics go.

p.s.s., since this is Bessler's wheel I have no claim to patent, invention or proprietary information, anyone can build this if they like. They will need to make known that it is Bessler's wheel. If not then they can be accused of trying to steal Bessler's work or of plagiarizing.

edited to add, if the image is to large for your screen, control and the minus sign And to make it larger, control and plus sign.