Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference

[Johndoe2]

In a true “closed system� if in fact one does exist, it does not matter the amount of “work� done as long as it is beneficial and aids in achieving the desired end result.

For example 2 kids wanting to reach an apple hanging from a tree. Below the tree is a see saw.Neither kid is able to reach it individually.
They realize that in they can use the see saw to reach the apple if they both stand on the see saw and the heavier kid stands the seat furthest from the apple. The lighter kid stands on the see saw and is raised up til he reaches the apple . Then jumps down and they can split the reward.
No “work� is done by gravity. The end result being 0 total work. However both kids get to enjoy a nice juicy apple!

[eccentrically1]

This is where Stevin's explaination comes onto play.
The positions of each weight have exactly the same force on the wheel irrespective of which weight is where. The condition is that as long as there is a weight in the same place as there was before there cannot be any gain.
We can therefore conclude that if a wheel is out of balance and we move the weights in an "open" path for the duration of the change from one set up of weights to another identical set up of weights we will again have an out of balance wheel. We need to seek a continuously out of balanced state as opposed to trying to put a balanced state out of balance.

Yes, we need to seek an OB state - from input other than conservative force.
An "open" path is only open for 360 degrees. After that, it is closed.
An initially OB state wasn't put in that OB state by gravity. And gravity wouldn't add any overbalance to that initial state. It simply converts the initial energy.

Can we all agree that, By definition any wheel affected by gravity (since it comes from an external source is an open system).

In a true “closed system� if in fact one does exist, it does not matter the amount of “work� done as long as it is beneficial and aids in achieving the desired end result.

We aren't talking about open vs. closed systems. Rather, open vs. closed paths.

[Robinhood46]

An "open" path is only open for 360 degrees. After that, it is closed.

Eccentrically1,
This is where i disagree.
If a weight moves through 9/8 ths of the wheel during one rotation this is not a closed path. It will never close.
It is a closed path in space but not a closed path to the wheel. The path to the wheel is forever progressing. The closed path will be after a certain number of rotations and the effect of the movent is in relation to it's present path and not the path taken a few rotations before. Stevins made it very clear that which weight is where has no importance.

[Georg Künstler]

A closed path must not be round, must not be a circle
The way go around can also have this shape.

The path is closed, but it inludes a steep flank.

When you follow Besslers eyewitnesses, then they heard a spring was released upwards, this can be the steep flank.
So here you can move a weight in a Flash, without influence of a torque.

[eccentrically1]

An "open" path is only open for 360 degrees. After that, it is closed.

Eccentrically1,
This is where i disagree.
If a weight moves through 9/8 ths of the wheel during one rotation this is not a closed path. It will never close.
It is a closed path in space but not a closed path to the wheel. The path to the wheel is forever progressing. The closed path will be after a certain number of rotations and the effect of the movent is in relation to it's present path and not the path taken a few rotations before. Stevins made it very clear that which weight is where has no importance.

I'm not following your logic. We seem to have different visuals of what is a closed path.
A wheel is in the shape of a circle. Anything inside a rotating wheel, a rotating circle, can't keep an open path. After one rotation, all the weights will end up where they started, regardless of the path directions they may have been forced to take to get there.

[Robinhood46]

I agree that we are not giving the same meaning to a closed path.
This, i think, is where the problem may be.
If a weight is not fixed to the wheel, not held to a specific segment of the wheel and is free to move with regard the wheel it does not HAVE to come back to where it was. It will only come back to where it was after many full rotations. As i just said, the weight will be taking a closed path with regard it's position in space but not with regard it's position to the wheel.
The equalising of the force of gravity is valid for the weights rising and falling in space.
If the rising and the falling is affecting the wheel in a progressive manner because of it's progression around the rim of the wheel then the wheel will be forced to rotate.

[eccentrically1]

I think I see what you’re getting at.
But it won’t make any difference if the weights aren’t fixed to the wheel. They would still have a closed path in relation to the wheel, regardless of any latency issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latency_(engineering)

[WaltzCee]

This is going to happen when you plainly state what you mean. It might Begin by you
posting a picture and then perhaps describing why you think it's different.

Now this did make me laugh out loud.
I shared a link with Da Vinci's wheels and i've been trying very hard to gat my thoughts out there.
We were told that PM is impossible, we were told why it is impossible and we were told how to come to the conclusion that this is right.
Some things we cannot be told, we need to understand them ourselves.
You all think i'm crazy for talking nonsense and i think you are all crazy for not understanding what i am saying. This is not a complaint or a critisisme, it is just my thoughts of the situation.

Sounds crazy, I know.

At least we can agree on that.

Glad to give you the belly laugh. . No charge. Let me take another stab at it.

Considering how thread worned DaVinci's ideas are, I was thinking something along the
lines of an original graphic. Something produced by your very own hand pointing out what
you find so remarkable about it. That would have really cut to the chase.

I'm sure there's at least one person out there looking for perpetual motion, however, not
studying anything about its history, found themselves looking along the lines of exactly
everything DaVinci looked at. I know for a fact there's at least one person out there like that.

[Robinhood46]

I think I see what you’re getting at.
But it won’t make any difference if the weights aren’t fixed to the wheel. They would still have a closed path in relation to the wheel, regardless of any latency issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latency_(engineering)

So it looks like we have boiled it down to open and closed path is not a good way of expressing what i'm talking about. Going around in circles, doesn't work. Riding with the wheel didnt' seem to do much good either. Evolving and progressing was not a great deal of help. Moving in only one direction didn't make it a lot clearer and riding with the wheel only complicated things even more.

I think I see what you’re getting at.

If this is this case, then i can't understand why you say.

They would still have a closed path in relation to the wheel

I think we have already agreed to not give "a closed path" the same meaning.
How would you explain what it is that you "think i see what you're getting at" ?

[Johndoe2]

This is where Stevin's explaination comes onto play.
The positions of each weight have exactly the same force on the wheel irrespective of which weight is where. The condition is that as long as there is a weight in the same place as there was before there cannot be any gain.
We can therefore conclude that if a wheel is out of balance and we move the weights in an "open" path for the duration of the change from one set up of weights to another identical set up of weights we will again have an out of balance wheel. We need to seek a continuously out of balanced state as opposed to trying to put a balanced state out of balance.

Yes, we need to seek an OB state - from input other than conservative force.
An "open" path is only open for 360 degrees. After that, it is closed.
An initially OB state wasn't put in that OB state by gravity. And gravity wouldn't add any overbalance to that initial state. It simply converts the initial energy.

Can we all agree that, By definition any wheel affected by gravity (since it comes from an external source is an open system).

In a true “closed system� if in fact one does exist, it does not matter the amount of “work� done as long as it is beneficial and aids in achieving the desired end result.

We aren't talking about open vs. closed systems. Rather, open vs. closed paths.

So i had to think about this one for a minute.
In a “closed path� it is a true statement that no work is performed Only IF no additional energy is added. This is why it is important that we consider besslers wheel an open system. Any PM device must have an energy source.
We can debate on what this energy source was but iit does not change the fact that an unlimited source of energy is required.

[Johndoe2]

Dbl post

[Johndoe2]

So lets look at the water wheel.
This is a perpetual motion machine (as long as there is a sufficient amount flowing water to draw energy from).
This is also a closed path but it is an open system.

[eccentrically1]

I think I see what you’re getting at.
But it won’t make any difference if the weights aren’t fixed to the wheel. They would still have a closed path in relation to the wheel, regardless of any latency issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latency_(engineering)

So it looks like we have boiled it down to open and closed path is not a good way of expressing what i'm talking about. Going around in circles, doesn't work. Riding with the wheel didnt' seem to do much good either. Evolving and progressing was not a great deal of help. Moving in only one direction didn't make it a lot clearer and riding with the wheel only complicated things even more.

I think I see what you’re getting at.

If this is this case, then i can't understand why you say.

They would still have a closed path in relation to the wheel

I think we have already agreed to not give "a closed path" the same meaning.
How would you explain what it is that you "think i see what you're getting at" ?

I think doesn't mean I know.
From your description, it sounds like you're saying we can somehow retard the motion of the weights so that the wheel would turn more than one rotation before the weights turn one rotation. And that somehow this would result in the weights not completing a non-circular path. This is a latency issue, trying to time the relative motions to greater benefit.

If a weight is not fixed to the wheel, not held to a specific segment of the wheel and is free to move with regard the wheel it does not HAVE to come back to where it was. It will only come back to where it was after many full rotations. As i just said, the weight will be taking a closed path with regard it's position in space but not with regard it's position to the wheel.

If a weight isn't fixed to the wheel, then we'd have a sphere wheel like MT 1 thru 8.

Since you're not posting any illustrations or links to videos etc., it's difficult to guess what you're trying to communicate.

[Robinhood46]

We appear to be giving different meanings to a "closed path" and also mixing it in with a closed system.
The way i am seeing a closed path is that a weight leaves a point, does whatever it does and then comes back to this exact point. It does this continually without going anywhere other than the same path from one point to the same point.
I can't think of a simpler way to express how i see this.

[Georg Künstler]

Johndoe2 wrote:

In a “closed path� it is a true statement that no work is performed Only IF no additional energy is added. This is why it is important that we consider besslers wheel an open system. Any PM device must have an energy source.
We can debate on what this energy source was but iit does not change the fact that an unlimited source of energy is required.

I see gravity as an (for us humans) unlimited energy source.
We must only manipulate the Speed difference between up and down.

Two ways. slowing down the fail or rising up faster than g.
Any combination of the two above will work.

The Limitation for the slowing down is when the mass is laying on the ground, unable to move anymore, deepest Point.
Gravity like to work for us, but is blocked.
Therefore we must take care in the construction that this can not happen,
the ground has to move too.