The T's are upright around the wheel by gear arrangement in which the static gear in the center is rotated around by the gears on the wheel. Then levers on each side remain balanced. The spring pushes the weight upwards and this pushes against the wheel and moves the wheel some. On the ascending side the whiplash of the wheel moving pulls the spring down and back into place. Will it perpetually do this because mechanically it seems feasible that it would begin to move? The gears should be adjusted in this drawing. I edited the last drawing to make this drawing but I am trying to move the levers only 45 degrees in this drawing so the gears would have to be adjusted (I Think). I want the gears to allow the red levers to move 45 degrees in 180 degree turn of the wheel as if the spring has push on it from top to bottom on the descending side.
EDIT
I think if the red levers were able to be pushed up for a longer turn of the wheel it would be more likely to run perpetually. What am I saying? instead of the red levers turning 45 degrees in 180 degrees, if they do so geared to do so in 360 degrees then it would be twice as likely to run perpetually and if it were geared to do so in 1000 degrees likewise more likely to run perpetually. Because what stops it from running perpetually is space for the weights to be pushed up. Since on the ascending side it will whiplash downwards some always but might not whiplash completely in one cycle turn. How many cycle turns is needed? I don't know but it should build up speed with each one.
Last edited by preoccupied on Mon Jan 20, 2025 2:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
This drawing is not cropped. If you would like, you can more easily edit it in MS Paint John Collins.
In this drawing the gear going to the inner catch gear from the red lever is supposed to be at a 16:1 ratio. If the red lever is meant to only turn a maximum of 45 degrees then that's 45*16=720, 720/2=360 degrees. I divide by 2 because the green gear is also turning against the platform. So the wheel has to turn with the spring pushing up against the weight for 360 degrees until it turns a total of 45 degree on the red lever. So it should when running at maximum efficiency in which the whiplash on the ascending side fully compresses the spring on the top, should have the red lever be pushed up 22.5 degrees when it reaches the bottom. I drew a little less than 22.5 degrees in the picture because I'm not convinced the spring will have push right away it might lose some push going around the top because of the change in direction. Or I have the physics backwards maybe it will have an immediate push because of that. It might have an immediate push so it should probably move the full 22.5 degrees. I don't know. The main concept is that he spring is powerful enough to push up the weight and the extra is moving the wheel until it whiplashes using the weight on the way up on the ascending side of the wheel to compress the spring. There also seems to be no correlation of the parts to how many of these movement mechanisms can be on the wheel. I have 4 drawn. There could be 8. There could be 16, there could be any number of them, if you supply them with a static catch in the center and connect the wheels together like drum. The more there are then the more per turn of the wheel a spring adds power to the wheel. There probably should at least be 8 because I have a 16:1 ratio and that cuts the power by 16x. So if the power is cut by 16*8 total mechanisms=2 total and the wheel can turn 360 degrees before fully taking up the 45 degrees of space the red lever can turn, then that is even because the descending side in which the weights apply power to is 180 turn of the wheel which is half of the 360 available turn to turn the red lever 45 degrees. Power to space is even but the whiplashing should exist on every turn, it just might not be a complete whiplash downwards on one turn, it might have to build up some speed and I think that is what Bessler was referring to when he said when weight came to be lined up together one by one, that the wheel reaches perpetual motion when the weights are full whiplashing back into place so that the spring and red lever has a full restart of space it can move. If necessary the gear ratio can increase from the red levers to the inner catch and/or the number of mechanisms can also. The red levers connect to the inner catch through the purple gears.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
My drawings are often edited from previous drawings. I deleted some arrows that were not meant for these drawings from the previous drawing because there were extra arrows from the drawings I was editing and I added some descriptions. Also I made the red lever lift a larger amount. In my envisioned concept for this drawing I have the lever lift a maximum 67.5 degrees in 360 turn of the wheel by the gear ratio being 160/15. 10.66 times 67.5=720/2=360 degrees like I said. I divide by 2 because the orange platform is being pushed on by the green gear. I am not sure if have the gears relationships correct but I think so. The reason I think I have to divide by 2 is that as the purple gear is pushed against by the gear belt and it is rotating in the opposite direction by the orange platform going in the opposite direction also so I cut it in half because of that. It's possible that I'm not supposed to divide by 2 but by a marginal amount that gets more efficient the larger the gear ratio is. Because the speed at which the platform moves would be more than the red lever pushes on the wheel. I have to think about this more to know if I'm accurate by dividing by 2. I think I am accurate. I also think I'm accurate because it moves against the wheel and is not pushing something free swinging so I don't think that the ratio becomes more complicated. If I'm right then at maximum speed in which the red levers full come down at the top from the speed of the whiplashing downwards on the ascending side of the wheel then the levers should move half of their maximum amount in 180 degree turn of the wheel descending which is 33.75 degrees that the red levers will lift at the bottom.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
I've decided that the gear ratio calculation does not have to be divided by 2 because the belt rotating around a gear does not reduce the gear teeth movement because the belt loses on one side but on the opposite gear it gains on the other. So I guess I am thinking that if a belt is rotating around a gear that it doesn't effect the rotation of the gears distances. Also for some reason I was fixated on the T shape and wasn't doing the obvious which is allowing the levers to have a wider range of motion. I have this the 90 degree range of motion which seems fair for the wheel. I can use a 4:1 gear ratio then to get the same effect as the previous drawing. That effect would be full range of motion by the red levers being used in 360 degree turn of the wheel. So at maximum speed the levers will be pushed up 45 degrees and whiplashed back down 45 degrees all of the way on the ascending side by the speed of the wheel. The description is in the drawing also. The wheel whiplashes some each turn but you don't necessarily have enough speed to whiplash it completely until the wheel is at maximum speed. Increasing number of mechanisms will help increase the speed of the wheel. The wheel might reach a faster speed with a higher gear ratio and also more mechanisms if needed. 8 mechanisms was likely used by Bessler because there were 8 bangs against the wheel. The banging sound was likely the change in direction at the bottom of the wheel which would cause the gears to clank a little. In review this is a wheel driven by stored spring power and the force of gravity brings the spring back down by simply being on a balanced upright platform as the wheel ascends and gravity restricts the weight. This has no reason it shouldn't operate when the range of motion of the red levers is available. So if I were to start this machine and it were to run out of range of motion it would be a failure but it'd succeed if I can manage to get the speed up on the wheel to the point where the whiplash brings the weight fully back down and maybe then some extra force that causes a little tension that would be okay too.
I'd like to thank the Bessler community here that is mostly ignoring me I think for inspiring me back into this hobby. I first read about Bessler in German only when I was young before my concussions. Now I think I owned a large investment bank and I was some kind of genius kid then which I can't verify right now and I'm out of contact with said business. I have no resources to build a prototype. I am at the mercy of my circumstances. Does anybody see merit in my design attempt here? I think this is probably the best I've done in a long time. I don't think I've made such a complete design since I was a kid and I used Bessler's clues to find a gear train that trades force unevenly which I haven't shared with many people because I think it can destroy a planet with a projectile. The gear train sets up the gears so that they move the same distance but have different force outputs. And it's reminding me a lot of my 2004 invention that I also recall making that was an enhanced DC Battery that I didn't want to share but only with a girl who later became a country music singer because it could be scaled up to WMD proportions. I do think this gravity wheel could be dangerous because it might be used by a lot of uses on Earth and using gravity for work more could move the planet out of the goldilocks zone or other side effects. I also think that a gravity wheel would have more effects on gravity traits on Earth than just using gravity in the regular way we already do. I mean to say that maybe lifting a rock and dropping it is exponentially less impactful as lifting the rock the same distance on a gravity wheel perpetual motion machine and letting it fall on the gravity wheel because there might be some extra influence in an uneven trade of forces against a gravitational body like Earth that we are not seeing by measurement of how far it travels, it might have like hidden force traits that we might not be aware of until we destroy the planet with the use of it.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
"I also recall making that was an enhanced DC Battery that I didn't want to share but only with a girl who later became a country music singer because it could be scaled up to WMD proportions." - yah from my experience you should stay away from telling girls secrets.
daxwc wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 1:04 pm
"I also recall making that was an enhanced DC Battery that I didn't want to share but only with a girl who later became a country music singer because it could be scaled up to WMD proportions." - yah from my experience you should stay away from telling girls secrets.
What an odd comment. Do you want to talk about your girlfriends? I'll give you the soap box here.
What do you think of the Bessler Wheel drawings? What do you think of the overbalanced wheel driven by stored spring energy? Do you want the enhanced DC Battery too? I don't know how to draw an electrical diagram right now. I'm actually pretty sure I'm missing some mechanical drawing symbols in my drawing that would help. Not a professional drafter at the moment is what I am.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
preoccupied wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 3:10 pm
What do you think of the Bessler Wheel drawings? What do you think of the overbalanced wheel driven by stored spring energy? Do you want the enhanced DC Battery too? I don't know how to draw an electrical diagram right now. I'm actually pretty sure I'm missing some mechanical drawing symbols in my drawing that would help. Not a professional drafter at the moment is what I am.
Actually, i think your drawings have improved quite a bit over the last couple weeks. :)
Have you considered putting the mechanism perpendicular to the axis of rotation, so that centrifugal forces (or effects, whatever you choose to call it) affects it less?
preoccupied wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 3:10 pm
What do you think of the Bessler Wheel drawings? What do you think of the overbalanced wheel driven by stored spring energy? Do you want the enhanced DC Battery too? I don't know how to draw an electrical diagram right now. I'm actually pretty sure I'm missing some mechanical drawing symbols in my drawing that would help. Not a professional drafter at the moment is what I am.
Actually, i think your drawings have improved quite a bit over the last couple weeks. :)
Have you considered putting the mechanism perpendicular to the axis of rotation, so that centrifugal forces (or effects, whatever you choose to call it) affects it less?
I don't think that the centrifugal force will become more impactful than the force of gravity because the wheel will not be spinning fast enough for that. There are some defining characteristics in my design which applies to every part. The green gears keep the orange platform upright which allows levers to be put on each side and these levers moving in unison are balanced on the wheel and on the forces on the gears from the impact of gravity. If I were to put a platform perhaps not rotating on any gears it would always trade balances against the wheel from the weights moving. I would be able to then get force from a spring and then the spring resetting from gravity but it would offset the weights on the wheel to cause counter torque against the wheels direction its trying to spin. However my balanced platforms kept upright while it turns on the wheel allows the weights to shift in unison and remain balanced. It's true that the dynamic of a spring pushing a weight up and then it whiplashing back from gravity can be done with a platform placed anywhere on the wheel in any way but only by keeping the platform upright with the green gears does it remain balanced when it does this. I think centrifugal force will give a smaller tug smaller than the impact of the spring because a springs force even when multiplied over and over again won't produce enough centrifugal force to be greater than the springs force. And how would one calculate that? And centrifugal force can't be turned off to create an effect that would rewind the spring but gravity can by there being an ascending side of the wheel and a descending side of the wheel. Because on the ascending side the weight is tugged downwards and on the descending side it's softly falling. Maybe theoretically a gear could flip inwards and then outwards and centrifugal force could pull in both directions, on in the direction the spring is tugging and one to tug the spring back in. Such a design would have to be held sideways so that no gravity effects levers on it and it would not be able to build up momentum, because with gravity you will build up momentum but with just springs you would need to probably complete the over unity in one turn cycle which would be at odds with the law of levers for the spring power. So Gravity is definitely the force allowing this design to work if it works. The work around that I have probably discovered is in fact keeping the weights parallel to the gravitational pull by keeping a lever upright with the green gears. And I think in old German in which we have to guess at all of the meanings of what Bessler was saying that when he said weights applied force at right angles to the axis, "axis" may have been him saying the straight edge on the drawing board. Since when they drew things they had the straight edge on the drafting table, he may have been referring to that straight edge and the platform I am using is the right angles to the axis because it is right angle from the drawing boards straight edge. And I think this platform and that it should keep the mechanisms in play balanced is a main discovery for using the utility of gravity ascending and descending on the wheel which is basically like turning on and off gravity for its effects because the weights whiplash downwards on the ascending side and fall softly on the descending side.
Last edited by preoccupied on Wed Jan 22, 2025 4:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
daxwc wroteI also recall making that was an enhanced DC Battery that I didn't want to share but only with a girl who later became a country music singer because it could be scaled up to WMD proportions." - yah from my experience you should stay away from telling girls secrets.
What an odd comment. Do you want to talk about your girlfriends? I'll give you the soap box here.
Ha ha; It was a poor attempt at a joke. Thanks though; watch though a girl is after your secrets right now ;)
About your design there is no use me saying anything unless it can be constructive. I will give you A for effort. I see what you are trying to do but unsure it can be achieved like that.
You are getting quite good at “Paint” program Jon if you can figure that out then you can figure out Algodoo. It is a free program. The mind it not good at predicting the outcome of some motions.
You have inspired me several times to look at a mechanism so your work shouldn’t be considered in vain. It is a community I would like to think I inspired thoughts and paths of others.
daxwc wroteI also recall making that was an enhanced DC Battery that I didn't want to share but only with a girl who later became a country music singer because it could be scaled up to WMD proportions." - yah from my experience you should stay away from telling girls secrets.
What an odd comment. Do you want to talk about your girlfriends? I'll give you the soap box here.
Ha ha; It was a poor attempt at a joke. Thanks though; watch though a girl is after your secrets right now ;)
About your design there is no use me saying anything unless it can be constructive. I will give you A for effort. I see what you are trying to do but unsure it can be achieved like that.
You are getting quite good at “Paint” program Jon if you can figure that out then you can figure out Algodoo. It is a free program. The mind it not good at predicting the outcome of some motions.
You have inspired me several times to look at a mechanism so your work shouldn’t be considered in vain. It is a community I would like to think I inspired thoughts and paths of others.
The motions are up and down Bro. It's an upright platform rotating balanced on the wheel. It's you other people who have weird complicated motions you are trying to manage with like pendulums for example. Algodoo is the shittiest program ever. I am interested in learning FreeCAD. Maybe we could lean FreeCAD together and have the experience in common when we finish. I can help by giving measurements I think would work. I already have a good idea of how the thing would be shaped. It appears like the static gear would be situated in the back right up against the wheel but it might have to be coming form the front also. Then the green gears would be on the back row too. The the orange platform was have some shapes. It would have the upright T and it would extend outwards at its base, it's pivot to hold the first purple gear. The first purple gear would be on the pivot location of the orange platform so it's hole would be a little thicker a bigger gaping hole than the one used by the orange platform. So small gear and big hole. Then the large purple gear would be against h back on the wheel wall but it's connection would be pushed to the top the small gear attached to it so it can catch the belt Also the T would be on the very front that actually top actually would be the location of the T and the levers and weights. I should have said the purple gear belt is in the middle because it is. It's over top the bottom and in the middle and the T is on the far out position connected to the gaping peg pivot that the gaping smaller gear and its larger hole uses. The whole orange platform hanging out in front could have room for all of the objects like the levers and the spring. This could be drawn in MS Paint. And the wall of the perpetual motion machine could be larger and the two devices could connect from the outer space along the rim. Side by side one in front of the other instead of them being side by size next to each other. You could row up these devices next to each other or side by side on in front of the other and have as many devices as up want maybe a million devices that is I mean 1,048,576 devices to keep it evenly spaced. Then you would have that many springs operating on the descending side at a time but would only need the whiplash force of the one spring on a weight in restricted momentum to reset all of the springs. Can you see there is no complication in this not working when scaled up? 1 million times the force necessary to have a perpetual motion machine could exist. The uh speed of the wheel is dependent on the number of mechanisms operating in a period of time but each individual mechanism resetting it reliant only on the speed of the wheel being fast enough. More mechanisms don't slow down the reload process. The reload process once reached will reset any number of mechanisms based on the speed of the wheel alone.
Last edited by preoccupied on Fri Jan 24, 2025 1:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
preoccupied : The motions are up and down Bro. It's an upright platform rotating balanced on the wheel. It's you other people who have weird complicated motions you are trying to manage with like pendulums for example.
Fair enough.
preoccupied : Algodoo is the shittiest program ever.
Agreed, but it is still better than “Paint” .
I am interested in learning FreeCAD. Maybe we could lean FreeCAD together and have the experience in common when we finish.
Not happening. Have you ever tried to herd cats. Well the cats are my thoughts and worse my patience.
Now I will piss everybody off with my Chatbot Copilot:
FreeCAD is primarily a design tool, but it can also be used to create physics simulations to some extent. It allows you to design and model mechanical systems in 3D, and you can use its built-in tools to analyze the motion and behavior of your designs. However, for more advanced physics simulations, you might want to use specialized software like Algodoo, WM3D or SimScale.
Yes, you're right. FreeCAD is indeed more focused on design and manufacturing.
Till AI can produce SIM’s which it will soon I am learning nothing, sorry Jon. If the time ever came that I had a physical runner then I would pay somebody to use CAD. I have personally worked with those engineers crazy skills they learned in university and now use everyday.
If I somehow CAD my idea it can be 3d Printed and anybody could build the same prototype. I don't think a simulation is needed because I have simulated it in my head. It works. I need a prototype for the purpose of making reproducible evidence in the real world.
I would like the world to give me recognition maybe for finding a gravity wheel. I think I found something about gravity that was able to make an engine. Because engines have to have a force and the force has to disappear which I've done by trading roles of the ascending and descending side of the wheel. This is an engine that I've made here and not much of an overbalanced wheel but more like a gravity engine. If I'm recognized if I could sell a PDF book for 250 dollars and 4 billion people buy it that would be 1 trillion dollars. If I were to sell hard cover first edition for 500 and 4 billion people buy it then that would be 2 trillion dollars. PDF is not print so edition doesn't matter. If I were to sell second edition with updated art for another 500 and 4 billion people buy it then that's another 2 trillion dollars. If I stream myself playing video games and because of my recognition 4 billion people buy into it for 100 dollars a month then that's 4.8 trillion a year. In 30 years that would be 144 trillion. If I had a 1,000 dollar a month newsletter and 1 billion people enjoy it then that's in 30 years an amount of 360 trillion, and this could be possible I say if the middle class is large enough. If world governments allow me to have a lifetime patent in which I request all machines be connected to a serial number and are metered then IF I set the price of power usage at half the market price of other available energy sources, say that's 50 dollars a month for 5 billion people that's 3 trillion a year. In 30 years that's 90 trillion. If the price of the serial number is 10,000 dollars for 5 billion people and it has to be renewed every 5 years then that's 250 trillion in 5 years and 1.5 quadrillion in 30 years. I think my investment bank that I'm out of contact with had 1.03 quadrillion in 2005 and is likely the largest such business in the USA, but it's hard to remember in hindsight what my paperwork said. I'm obviously out of contact with my damn bank. In 30 years with everything I listed I can only make with one book with a second edition with updated art work, streaming video games, a high priced newsletter that people like if they can afford it, a rule of law worldwide and a lifetime patent for it to be metered and serial numbered, all added together would be 2.099 quadrillion in 30 years. That was 5 trillion expensive single book fully received by the public with a second edition, 144 trillion streaming video games if I play periodically, 360 trillion on newsletter, lifetime metered energy 90 trillion, serial numbers on the machines 1.5 quadrillion. The metering of the perpetual motion machines would be necessary to track how much energy it being used by them so we can study it's effects on the planet, if any. I am paranoid. I could straight up say never use it for energy but if there is a compulsion to try we have to meter it for research purposes and if we meter the energy we might has well give the inventor a lifetime patent and apply serial numbers to all of the machines as well to make the enforcement of the law more real. This preliminary estimate of profit potential is potentially flawed. Fan base exaggerated maybe. Full cooperation of the entire world required. World middle class income expected to be near second to first world status in the future for this to work out like I've written. If you've got any other ideas on how this would make money, I un-jokingly invite you to say something ridiculous.
EDIT
I miscalculated the serial numbers which I took something 10,000 in 5 years which is about 160 dollars a month, but if I am aiming to charge half for metered use and average cost for electricity is 144 a month then the serial number should be more close to 5,000 dollars then someone who uses an average amount of electricity would pay about the same for electricity use. 259.2 trillion for 5 billion people in 30 years. I guess if I cut in half the cost the average cost and make it a serial number and halve the metered cost then there would be incentive to use more electricity above the average because that is how you would profit off of the deal that would otherwise be the same as regular costs of other energy. I really must emphasize though that whatever happens what's most important is the scientific records of how much energy is used. So there must be meters on these things. As the inventor I could get paid or any of you could if you were an inventor of a successful gravity wheel. So with everything that I listed if I subtract the difference of 1.5 quadrillion from 259.2 trillion to get 1,240 trillion that is how much I was off in my calculation. So the add up together amount was supposed to be 2.099Q-1.24Q = 859Trillion. If I did all of that stuff I would have made 859 Trillion in 30 years. And the energy would have been 259.2 trillion in 30 years of it if I replace average energy use of electricity with perpetual motion machine for 5 billion people. This isn't my first math mistake on the forum but I just get on here and type I don't have prep.
Last edited by preoccupied on Sat Jan 25, 2025 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
