Hypothesis .. Raising GPE without using Law of Levers ? ..

[preoccupied]

The ratchet conflict is solved by removing a belt. If the belt is only wrapped on one side it will work and there will be some loose string for some of the belts. I don't know how this applies to Fletcher's design but it does apply to what I think MT 138 looks like to me. Because of the 4:1 gear ratio the wheel will remain overbalanced for a longer turn and then the left side on a ratchet and a loose string will fall the rest of the way to its side.

This looks interesting but what is also interesting is who gets credit for this if it's the correct wheel design? If Johann Bessler gets credit for it then I don't and it could be considered already invented but never released and does that mean I can't profit from it if it works? As a material story Johann Bessler at least in this particular derivation of an obvious clue would be Bessler's story. Whereas maybe a less obvious take on a gravity wheel would be more to the story of the modern inventor. Like my whiplashing weights in my own thread grease power is a less obvious take on Bessler's clues. But if this works right out of MT138, it's just Bessler showing he had the solution by placing it in a toy drawing.

[Kattla]

This looks interesting but what is also interesting is who gets credit for this if it's the correct wheel design? If Johann Bessler gets credit for it then I don't and it could be considered already invented but never released and does that mean I can't profit from it if it works? As a material story Johann Bessler at least in this particular derivation of an obvious clue would be Bessler's story. Whereas maybe a less obvious take on a gravity wheel would be more to the story of the modern inventor. Like my whiplashing weights in my own thread grease power is a less obvious take on Bessler's clues. But if this works right out of MT138, it's just Bessler showing he had the solution by placing it in a toy drawing.

A lawyer could give a better answer, but in my limited understanding, a working selfrunning wheel would belong to whoever makes it first , and what they decide to do with it. But , they have to MAKE it. Not just draw or toss around ideas, but actually make a working machine.

As for Besslers clues, they are so open for interpretation that they could fit almost any machine. At the best, i guess one could say their machine was "inspired by Besslers words and drawings". If they choose to honor Him.

[nebollinger]

My Mt138 drawing is attached showing a vertical plum line and shifted to the right it is right side heavy. And the mass is lowered as well but when flipped over it is bottom heavy and hangs in the center at the plum line.
Norman

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher!

I added the latch/ratchet formula to your sim. I think it works correctly. It appears too, even on my old program and laptop :7)

The formula assumes clockwise rotation. Check it out, it makes things work a bit better.

Active when: And(Body[SwingerRod].p.r > 0.1, Body[SwingerRod].v.r <= Body[Wheel].v.r) Thanks a heaps ..

What this formula simulates is actually a circular ratchet/freewheel/overrunning clutch type of action. When the swinger is swinged backward, it gets latched when matching the Wheel's speed, and stays latched until swings to the bottom/6 o'clock, or until wobbled backward again by the T-pendulum.

I also tried a combination of the latch formula and a "magic damper". All sim files attached. I added some starting push to see how it goes... for those following, a one-time CW push instead of hand positioning the swingers into OOB and letting gravity start it off from pre-set imbalance ..

One thing to note... This heavy offset crank pendulum puts a lot of stress on the connection/crank [ YES it does - I call it the 'squeeze the cherry pip thru the gap' , and anytime you squeeze something it's gonna hurt ], I have the impression it is not the best fit for this function, but still doing its job. It does, but a good reason to change up the system ..

Also, I completed my first sims on this concept. I made some changes/upgrades: .. Absolute things of beauty Greg, you put your sweat and grind into them, and it is much appreciated ..

- I replaced the big pendulum with a very simple speed "variator" mechanism which utilizes tension springs. You can gear it up to rotate many times of wheel speed ( set to 6 x ), and this way it can produce different frequency/intensity of wobble. More rotations of wobble per one full wheel rotation... Nice test of spring power ..

- I added a Roberval Planetary Gearing as an artificial horizon mechanism to stop the Swingers from swinging into the left side. Awesome They can even bounce back to the right. However, as I tested it might work better without this collision or side restricted swinging. Wastes a little energy but acceptable at an elasticity of 0.95 ( steel & rubber ) ..

Wm2d has a very hard time making this not work, struggling with it. I'll add to your comment at the bottom of the post ..

Unfortunately, wm2d explodes the sim if I try to set it to simpler integrator methods. hmm, see my comments to come .. Maybe it would run and produce a gain on Euler...

Perhaps this is the best OOB arrangement I have ever sim-built. What is really nice to watch that all the OOB weights ( aka swingers ) just go into OOB positions effortlessly, like it's the most natural thing to happen. Thanks to the speed variator and the bouncing back effect... It's fun! As you said fun, and a thing of beauty to behold lol ..

The Roberval Gearing is overkill, but I wanted to be precise and max it out. A ramp might be sufficient on the ascending side, but all that collision detection/ramp friction would not help much with the sim. No, it wouldn't ..

Also, I forced this roberval gearing with a heavy pendulum ( i.e. an anchoring artificial horizon ), so its not entirely fixed, depends on how heavy the pendulum is. Well, if the sun gear is anchored, then it will be absolutely fixed.

Two sims attached. In the second sim I added a lot of controls. Thanks .. So, fine tuning it to madness is possible now. ;-)

Have a nice play! I will :7) and thanks again for your hard work and mental gymnastics .. it ain't easy to out think the program ..

When I come back shortly Greg ( something just came up that needs my attention ) I will add my first cab off the rank thoughts and tweaks to your excellent sims - its a process, right .. AA ..'A' for effort, and 'A' for execution lol - Sir you are a gentleman and a scholar, and an acrobat ..

-f

[Fletcher]

I didn't think you'd mind me posting up one of your sims for those that can't download then Gregory .. context ..

...................



...................

[Roxaway59]

When it comes to the toy page I think its worth pointing out that if you hold a Jacobs ladder so the pieces are flat it would look a little like this from the side.
Graham

[Fletcher]

Here's your tweaking of mine where you made the one-way swinger latch and dampen back swing reliable and not crash the program ..

......................

https://ibb.co/zQr3W5k

https://postimg.cc/rd7WwVrz

......................

ETA .. postimage host won't upload the animation today so I can direct copy into the post as I used to do .. file size not large ..

@ jb et al .. any ideas or alternatives jb that are free and will copy direct into a post without you guys having to click on a link ? ..

[preoccupied]

This looks interesting but what is also interesting is who gets credit for this if it's the correct wheel design? If Johann Bessler gets credit for it then I don't and it could be considered already invented but never released and does that mean I can't profit from it if it works? As a material story Johann Bessler at least in this particular derivation of an obvious clue would be Bessler's story. Whereas maybe a less obvious take on a gravity wheel would be more to the story of the modern inventor. Like my whiplashing weights in my own thread grease power is a less obvious take on Bessler's clues. But if this works right out of MT138, it's just Bessler showing he had the solution by placing it in a toy drawing.

A lawyer could give a better answer, but in my limited understanding, a working selfrunning wheel would belong to whoever makes it first , and what they decide to do with it. But , they have to MAKE it. Not just draw or toss around ideas, but actually make a working machine.

As for Besslers clues, they are so open for interpretation that they could fit almost any machine. At the best, i guess one could say their machine was "inspired by Besslers words and drawings". If they choose to honor Him.

The legal requirement if you were to ask like an AI they would probably say you need would be a working model to apply for a patent. This is because it is considered impossible. But keep in mind prior art. All ideas floating around are destroyed by not going into a working wheel right away, in the USA within a year of being shown publicly (I think). So the race is against the clock for me but I have no resources to build anything. I think that this Toy page thing that I just drew would be interesting to build and I also have hope in my engine in my grease power thread. If I could build the toy page thing I just drew and my whiplashing weights engine that I have been working on that would be enjoyable to me but I have no resources. How can I entice someone to help me build one of my ideas? I think the problem with wanting to do that is that there is not enough people interested in the topic we are working on, Bessler's wheel. If there were hundreds of people posting on the forum a day I think that I would find someone who would have interest in helping me build a prototype but just a handful of people I guess are here. I don't think the physical model grants the patent I think it's the art instead. If I have someone to build me a prototype of my art we can share in the contribution to the art and if I make money, I think I would be generous. The art gets the patent but the machine is a requirement because it's considered impossible. This time next January my art will be worthless in the USA because I have no resources to build a prototype in the mean time according to how long the art lasts in the USA.

My hope is that this is cool enough to evade the rules a little. To go beyond them. Because it is considered impossible maybe the whole world will make an exception if someone slips through the legal cracks as the inventor and might not benefit from inventing something really cool. If I do something really really coo; like I am a fantastic person and cool people are usually the people who can cut in line because they are beautiful and nobody cares because that guy is cool, step in front of me friend they might say. I'd like whoever invents a perpetual motion machine to be the exception to the rules. Let no perpetual motion machine go unrewarded because it's just so awesome because it's considered impossible at the moment. I would very much like to build a prototype of this toy page drawing and my whiplashing weights engine in my grease power thread.

[Fletcher]

Edited .. Testing ..

[johannesbender]

Edited: works fine

[Fletcher]

Weird - had to delete the saved gif files and redo ..

................



................

[daxwc]

That is compelling; too bad you can’t stop more of the back swing. Why is the swingers different colours in your SIM Fletcher? Just for contrast?

[Gregory]

When I come back shortly Greg ( something just came up that needs my attention ) I will add my first cab off the rank thoughts and tweaks to your excellent sims - its a process, right .. AA ..'A' for effort, and 'A' for execution lol - Sir you are a gentleman and a scholar, and an acrobat ..

Hey, thanks for all the nice words, I appreciate it!
Right, I am sure you still have some thoughts and tweaks, after you set those things right...

I didn't think you'd mind me posting up one of your sims for those that can't download then Gregory .. context ..

Sure, post it as you like! I was just too lazy to make the animation and mess with the link.

About my more advanced sim...
It's interesting, that when this system is push started, then all the swingers are instantly thrown to OOB position due to either colliding with their own stop/limiter surface or just naturally swung there. Just thinking about... That's a nice bonus to have, and could be a handy-mysterious Bessler's type of clue as well.

Like: "How great my weights are, they are simply just swing to their desired place by themselves when started, blah-blah"
Did he ever mention something like that?

About the latch formula:
And(Body[SwingerRod].p.r > 0.1, Body[SwingerRod].v.r <= Body[Wheel].v.r + b)

The 0.1 degree or radian (depends on sim settings) is a rotational position just slightly to the right from 6 o'clock. This is required to deactivate the rod element before reaching the bottom... to escape the possibility of colliding into the stop while the rod is active. That would be a disaster, a big collision, and things would stop abruptly alltogether. So, if problems occur this number can be increased.
Also, mind the gap... more precisely mind the initial orientation of the swinger rod, aka how it's drew. It's assumed to be drew from top to bottom, and that's considered to be the zero position here.

The + b ... Was an idea, an additional tweak to control when the swingers latch compared to wheel speed. The default is 0, aka they latch when wheel speed is matched as they're swing/accelerating back into clockwise direction. Adding or subtracting a few RPMs might change this behaviour a little bit, but not recommended by default. Also you have to keep in mind which direction the wheel rotates, cause plus and minus will mean different things based on rotational direction.

[Fletcher]

That is compelling; too bad you can’t stop more of the back swing.

Why is the swingers different colours in your SIM Fletcher? Just for contrast?

* Colour changes are just for contrast dax - force of habit - like in these sims you know the top swingers will swing right on the dump cycle, and the bottom swingers will swing right on the pump cycle - then they change places - and sometimes the swing or differences you are expecting to see can be small and you have to concentrate - and if you are like me I can distract myself on other tasks while a sim is running and when I come back to the screen it is not easy at first glance to get up to speed - it is easier to do that and see individual detail if visual contrasts are used, imo ..

* That is compelling; too bad you can’t stop more of the back swing.

It is why I was banging on about Wagner's claim in his critiques of no weights being seen or heard at or near the D. wheel circumference - Cf's - if we rebuilt that sim with the swingers at a much lesser radius ( say mid radius ) they would be way less effected by Cf's ( i.e. their own tendency to continue in a tangent line due to their inertias ) - that is because the velocity doubles or halves by the radius - therefore closer radius means less velocity and Cf's .. and why I think Wagner was on the money ..

Cf's = mv^2/r where the acceleration = v^2/r ..

ETA .. but torque is the same at any radius - and we know the power was limited indicating torque was limited, imo ..

AP .. " The flail would rather be with the Scholar than the Thresher "

Gould Oddities .. “ The internal structure of the machine is of a nature according to the laws of mechanical perpetual motion, so arranged that certain disposed weights, once in rotation, gain force from their own swinging, and must continue this movement as long as their structure does not lose its position and arrangement. "

.................

[daxwc]

Wouldn't lengthening the swingers to achieve overbalance without bringing the weights closer better than bringing the swingers inward? Lengthening the swingers can increase their swing amplitude and contribute to overbalance. There has to be a right balance between the length of the swingers and their placement within the system to optimize their motion and the overall torque generated... no? Or straight CF and RPM?