Jonathan wrote:To clarify, or for someone to clarify for me: It is my understanding that the picture that started this thread, and the drawing Scott just posted, is not the design of the wheel which is claimed to work.
You are correct. These wheels shown here are not the two wheels which Darrell claims work.
I have realized that I am probably unable to deliver the video. Since the last time I looked at it, hotmail has changed their antivirus software. The new program thinks there's a virus in the video, and won't let me open or forward it.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
OK guys ... here's a potential explanation for only seeing a 1/4 turn from startup. Darrell can of course chip in here any time. We have all done it many times, it's called the unbalanced wheel !
Observation : reading between the lines here, we have a many spoked wheel that does not keel & is very similar to Brutus's (sp) wheel design, but is not the same. i.e. the orientation of the in & out weight movement/shifting or phasing is offset 90 degrees from the Brutus design so that it lifts vertically from top & bottom as per the "flipper" design animation jim_mich once posted here b4 Darrell came along.
Now for why we only get to see a 1/4 turn. I am speaking from personal build experience here. When you build a many spoked wheel design each spoke must be exact in its placement (number of degrees apart) & orientation (must be aligned in the same plain of the disk formed). To achieve perfect balancing you generally must use 2 spoke attachment points. 1 is the attachment to the axle hub & the second must be further out towards the rim (preferably at the rim). Imagine a spoked wooden wheel. If the rim attachment for the spoke is close to the axle & only part way out along the radius or there is no rim attachment point (free floating, as my one in my garage is) then there is room for balancing errors to occur. We can't afterall take it down to the nearest tyre merchant for machine balancing !
IOW's we inadvertently create a top heavy wheel because the spoke placement is not exact. If the wheel is then placed in such a way that it's COG sits above the axle with an ever so slight bias one way (from 12 o'cl) & released it will accelerate giving the impression of self starting & self powered acceleration.
In simple terms think of a circle divided exactly in 1/2 horizontally so the 2 halves form 180 degrees "D" sections each. Now adjust the 2 spokes that form the diameter so that they now appear as separate radii & 1 "D" segment now has internal angle of 179 degrees & the other 181 degrees. You get the picture. The wheel is now side heavy & will act exactly like a pendulum & rotate to the bottom (it will keel). If you use this facete to give your wheel a "helping hand" by 'arranging things favourably' then the wheel will intially accelerate then keeling & frictional losses take their toll, but it will not complete even 1 revolution (hense you see a 1/4 turn in the video b4 it slows down).
No personal criticism intended Darrell, just an alternative very rational explanation offered to the Bessler Community.
One thing to know is that this wheel always has 4.5lbs at three oclock at all times and it resets every 30 degrees of movement.
30,30,30,30 and so on.
Untill tomorrow,
ovyyus wrote:However, only the last 10 seconds show the wheel starting to turn, very slowly increasing for a bit over 1/4 of a revolution (120 deg to be exact) and, just before the clip ends, the wheel is slowing down.
Imagine this... you have finally managed to create the long sought overbalanced self-turning gravity powered wheel... you have a video camera and lots of time to document this momentous event... you then completely fail to capture any useful footage of the wheel tuning under it's own power!!!
Something does NOT add up here!
I must have a 10 second segment of that video from just as it starts to turn for about 90 degrees. Does it show any of the upper part of the wheel during the beginning or just the lower view?
Since most of the world thinks a gravity wheel to be imposible then if someone (Darrell?) makes a working wheel they are going to be met with a wall of doubt which they must climb. One good tool to climb that wall of doubt would be a good clear video showing the wheel working, turning under a load. Another tool would be to prepared a demonstration of the wheel, a hands on show for non-believers. Until non-believers can see a working wheel they will remain non-believers. Another tool would be to show mathamaticaly what makes the wheel work. To do this the inventor AND the observer must be conversant in accurate mathamatical energy formulas.
So why doesn't Darrell show to one of us who have already signed his non-disclosure a full video of his wheel really working instead of just short little clips which could very easily be faked? It seems there are numerous people ready to step forward and help Darrell, but Darrell must help himself by producing real unquestionable evidence that his wheel works. Else we are left with the thought that Darrell may be a fraud?
One thing to know is that this wheel always has 4.5lbs at three oclock at all times and it resets every 30 degrees of movement.
30,30,30,30 and so on.
My calculations say that it takes that exact same 4.5 lbs to reset every 30 degrees. Which means no energy left over to turn the wheel. There is also inertia and flexing which I've not been able to quantify.
I must have a 10 second segment of that video from just as it starts to turn for about 90 degrees. Does it show any of the upper part of the wheel during the beginning or just the lower view?
Jim, the large clip I have shows a full view of the wheel. I also have others showing various operational closeups of the top and bottom detail.
If your clip does not show a full view of the wheel (as is suggested in your post) then it is a different clip to the one I have. This means that Darrell has more than one clip showing only a 1/4 rotation of his wheel. How odd.
IMO, a wheel that only turns 1/4 rotation has limited practical use.
Hi Pete, you mean offered to give $10k don't you? You didn't actually give your hard earned money BEFORE proof did you? Surely you wouldn't do that! Please tell me you didn't.
The money was in monthly installments plus exceptionals such as a computer, digital camera and a new shed to house the new wheel that he decided to build at my cost.
Originally he was only going to clean up the existing wheel so we could show it to investors but he got carried away and built a new one that didn't work.
Thats life, I stopped paying him in July after he said "just another $1000 will see it through".
He gave up his job in March after I met him in Toronto as he was convinced it would only take 3 weeks to clean it up but after 4 months and a lot of money I still had nothing but promisess and I did not want a grown man dependant on me so I stopped paying.
Ouch! I hope that was discretionary money and not taken from the family budget.
Darrell's 8 foot wheel was made by canabalizing his 6-1/2 foot wheel. I guess he thought bigger is better? He says both these wheels work but if the 6-1/2 foot wheel worked then why build a bigger wheel? My guess is the 6-1/2 foot wheel didn't work but just coasted for a long time and he thought if he made it bigger it would work? I don't think he realized that with a wheel of his type the power is relative to the weight shifting distance and NOT the size of the wheel.
It looks like Pete stepped in to support Darrell's idea but my calculations say the bigger wheel will also just coast. So Darrell could not produce a working wheel for Pete and Darrell is getting hungry again looking for fresh meat.
PROOF
I think that we need to decide what makes proof that a wheel is genuine. After all Bessler was required to lock it in a room for 54 days.
There have been claims on the site but what means proof, 2 turns before stopping, etc? I think there needs to be a section on just what definition of proof will be acceptable.
Please stop all this debating back and forth.
Yes, it would not take much for me to drive there, nor would it take much for Patrick to drive there. I'm a bit reluctant to go see it and/or sign a non-disclosure since I myself am close to a solution. Several years ago, on the Keelynet site, I candidly made some suggestions to a "wheel designer" who turned around and accused me of trying to steal his ideas. At that point I stopped trying to make prototypes to prove my theories because I was so turned off by how anyone can say, "well, I thought of it first but he couldn't have built it unless he figured out what I was saying..." blah blah blah.
Two years ago, I decided to go back to working on the solution since it has much more importance than just a few individuals looking for attention. I stopped for so long that people that I've previously communicated with don't even remember me, and I'm thankful for that.
So in short, I refuse to go to Smiths Falls to look at Darrell's wheel.
