Are perpetual motion machines possible?

[WaltzCee]

which way did they go? which way did they go? What the hell did he say?

come on man. We might not be able to do the math yet any suicidal monkey is able to cause us to see the light.

If the ratio of a change in y to a change in x cause 2x, well hey. This is headed into the dirt.

Dirt = zero.

What are you trying to say here?

[Grimer]

Kiowa County Press (Eads, Kiowa County)
Friday, March 27, 1908
Page: 4


PERPETUAL MOTION, SURE!

Inventor Cannot Stop Machine When Once Started.

Evanston, In.- After spending two years and putting a large amount of money into materials, J. O. Scott of this place claims to have solved the problem of perpetual motion. One machine, having been weakened in remodeling, flew to pieces after running a period of three minutes, and he is now at work on a new model of so substantial a pattern that it cannot fail to stand the test. A governor is all he lacks, claims Scott. After starting his machine, has no way of stopping it except to load it until it cannot run.

The machine, as has been the case with all previous experiments along this line, attempts to utilize gravity for power. On a six-foot wheel Scott claims to have an overbalancing weight of 140 pounds. Weights, cams and levers are used in its construction, but further than this, Scott will not reveal the workings of his model. The weights on one side extend 16 inches beyond the circumference of the wheel, and on the other side fall 4 inches within. He expects to have the machine completed in about two months.


I would like to know more about this one!

https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers. ... 80327.2.31#

1908, eh! So there's no danger of competition.

Good find.

Edit: Whilst browsing the above link I was amused to read this.

No Compensation Necessary . I know a young fellow who went to work in a railroad office downtown, and the first week he was there the boss caught him kissing the typewriter . He glared at him and shouted : Say , Howard , do I pay you for kissing my typewriter? No, sir, answered the boy, You don t have to pay me , I'll do it for nothing.

The change in usage of the word, typewriter, makes that even funnier today than it was then. ...:-)
.

[Fcdriver]

Bessler used a power stroke that only lasted for 45 degrees turn of the wheel, so he needed 8 arms. In my method I change this, I use a more powerful power stroke, which 1.5 times stronger, which can lift more, and change the harmonic motion distances, to my advantage. I take a few degrees away from lift, and add them to the power stroke, to make up the difference. This allows for a over lap of the power strokes. Adding more arms adds to the over lapping of the power strokes.

Can you validate as "fact" the underlined and bolded statement, by pointing out the source in Bessler's writings and/or drawings?

Please define/explain what you mean by "harmonic motion" in regards to your device.

harmonic motion is the rate of lift as it goes around a wheel, the rate of lift is slower from 6:00 to 7:00 than from 8:00 to 9:00, and again it is slower from 11:00 to 12 than from 9:00 to 10:00. The rate of lift per degree turns relates to he force required to lift. If you have a wheel with a heavy weight is much easier to lift from 10:00 to 12:00, than from 8:00 to 10:00. This is because of the degree turns of the wheel vs the amount or rate of lift. Slowing the rate of lift to a constant equal rate equal to the rate from 11:00 to 12:00 gives much less force required to lift. Slow and steady vs accelerating and slowing. It takes force to accelerate. Or delivers force by accelerating, on the power stroke. It only takes about 6 hp for a 2000 lbs car to travel 60 mph, but it take much more to accelerate it to 60 mph,, by lifting slowly it only takes me 5 lbs of torque at 12 inches from cent to lift, making for 1.6 lbs of imbalance at the edge of my wheel, while pushing down with 33 lbs at 24 inches from center means I have 66 lbs of torque from my power stroke, a net gain of 61 per arm. Giving me 15 lbs of imbalance at the edge of the wheel, vs 1.6 lbs required to lift. Because I lift by 1/4s each additional arm added ends up on the power stroke side, 5 arms means I always have two in different areas of the power stroke, 6 arms means I have up to three one starting one mid way and one finishing the power stroke.

[Mark]

Fcdriver, thank you for responding to one of my two requests. :-)

Please confirm that the following are correct:
1) A "degree turns" = one 360th of a revolution [of the main wheel].
2) The variance in "rate of lift" is due to the influence of the cams.
3) The cams are solidly fixed to the wheel stand, i.e. stationary.

Edited to add: Also, would you please explain what you mean when you say that you "lift by 1/4s". [Quarters... in reference to what?]

Thanks

[AB Hammer]

Because it could be some what similar

Frank D

That one, would not be similar to what you are doing, but more of what I am doing incorporating the prime mover device. IMHO So if I am correct? I can show weight doing the same thing externally in one of many that can be built with its use.

[WaltzCee]

The last sentence is . . . heck, how do you say, er, um. Well this is from 1908.

What ever happened?

[Grimer]

The last sentence is . . . heck, how do you say, er, um. Well this is from 1908.

What ever happened?

Maybe it accelerated to destruction and seriously injured him - or worse.

I've noticed with the Cold Fusion researchers when the experiments become rather hazardous they ten to pull back. The classic example is Pons and Fleischmann who had a large cube of palladium which they had saturated with heavy hydrogen and left in the lab overnight. When the came back in the morning the lab was wrecked and there was a large hole in the lab bench.
Another case was Mizuno who had prepared some discs of sintered palladium and one of them threatened a runaway reaction. It scared him and so he backed off.

If it had been me I would have tried to get as big a bang as possible.

I remember reading one of the earliest posts in this forum where someone had an experiment with billiard balls which ran away from him. I'll have to see if I can find it. Maybe I should enlist Jim's help. He's brilliant at finding stuff.

And of course there is that account of the Keenie development where one of his models exploded.

I suspect Bessler's wheel reached a natural equilibrium point like the Rubber Band Motor.

[WaltzCee]

If it had been me I would have tried to get as big a bang as possible.

Absolutely.

[Fcdriver]

Fcdriver, thank you for responding to one of my two requests. :-)

Please confirm that the following are correct:
1) A "degree turns" = one 360th of a revolution [of the main wheel].
2) The variance in "rate of lift" is due to the influence of the cams.
3) The cams are solidly fixed to the wheel stand, i.e. stationary.

Edited to add: Also, would you please explain what you mean when you say that you "lift by 1/4s". [Quarters... in reference to what?]

Thanks

hmm 1/4s what I call 1/4s , not knowing what else to call it, but I call it 1/4s. In trying different methods, my wife would claim I was just sitting there looking at the wheel. Each method I noticed the exact same problem. Lifting from about 7:30 to 10:30, so I divided the wheel into 1/4s. Top bottom right and left. I soon figured that if the weight or arm moved or followed down with the wheel from 1:30 to 4:30, there were actually 5 individual 1/4s. This meant my cycle was 450 degrees, not 360 degrees sort of. I found it easy for 1 to lift 4 a distance, in reference to 1/4s of the wheel. This is why I call it 1/4s.

[ME]

hmm 1/4s what I call 1/4s

so actually that's a "1 1/4s"? as in 450°, or 90°?
or is it a lifting ratio 1:4?
or both?

Perhaps a good idea to start a new topic explaining your glossary in simple english?
[Degree, Harmonics, 1/4s, Powerstroke, F=m*a, etc..]

[Fcdriver]

This means that a weight or arm dropping 40 inches, can easily lift three weights or arms 10 inches each. When the weights or arms are fanned, three weights the third weight or arm only has to move from thirty to forty, to be the next inline, to power the wheel, for the next cycle. It is not the loss of height that causes a problem, it is the solution.

[ME]

30"-up and 40"-down clearly causes a motivation for motion, but it still has to recover the lost 10" ?

[Fcdriver]

What lost 10" ? each lifted weight is only moving 10" and they are 10" apart.

[ME]

" dropping 40 inches": -40"
"lift three weights or arms 10 inches each": 3 * (+10") = +30"
Sum total: -40" + 30" = -10"

[Fcdriver]

And the three arm each move up 10 inches as the other moved down the forty inches