Selling a working wheel!!!

[P-Motion]

P,

I, like you designed many a concept over the years and have had egg on my face on more than one occasion.
I designed one form scratch only later to discover it was exactly, and I mean exactly, the same a design posted some years earlier - before I became a member.
Whats the chances of that?

We on this forum have a habit of repeating ourselves from time to time.
especially with newer members who innocently think their Idea is new and unique.

Attempts have been tried to construct a design database to cure this problem but most are reluctant or don't have the time to post to it.

I can assure you that this type of design has been tried many times in different guises.

Offsetting a collector or pick up independently from the main wheel (other than a ramp) is IMO a worthwhile area for research.

Differences of opinion will occur from time to time but that shouldn't discourage anyone from this quest.

Keep up the good work but inquire before claim is the best approach.

Kas

Kas,
What can I say ? I like what math shows me. No one has shown me a similar design.
I have sent an e-mail to a local reporter and gave him an example of what math shows and under what scenario it might work best. If he writes about it, I will have no problem with my math being tested.
But at present, I can't try it the way I'd like. I could do some R&D to help refine the way I'd like to do. But with what I've heard in here, only success on first effort proves anything.
I think that is sad because it makes the people in here as bad as those that don't support the idea in any form.

[KAS]

P,

I know where your coming from with the math proof.

IMO, there are 3 kinds of gravity wheeler - theorists, realists and theo-realists.

All math can do is theoretically guide you to a positive or negative conclusion.
I trusted the maths on too many occasions only to be let down when confronted with an expensive failure.

Math is important of course but it must be backed up with the gut instinct Ralph was talking about.
Through experience, I am know able to calculate mentally if a concept is worth trying or not.
It is sad but, I think in angular velocity, inertia and torque in every daydream.

As for differences of opinion. It is good for the soul to have a meaningful debate sometimes. Take Ralph for instance (I hope he doesn't mind me using him as an example), I respect his judgment above most on this forum. But we both fervently disagree on one subject - namely pinning pivots to a wheel. Only one of us is going to be right in the end, that is, if someone cracks this enigma.

You may well be right 'P' with your conclusions and I sincerely hope you are but my advice (if worth anything) is don't trust maths alone.
It will creep up on you and bite you on the butt.

Kas

[rlortie]

P-Motion,

How the hell would trying something based on math make me look like a fool ?
I'd think quitting on it to make you happy would make me look more the fool.

Ah Ha! now you are starting to wise up. First off attempting to work out something based on math does not make a fool. I believe you would agree that math is the the basic root of all theories.

Quitting is not the answer. You should consider my rebuttal as an incentive to drive yourself forward and prove me wrong. Do not take what I say as a personal dig, it is not. It is meant to refute you on an R&D basis better known as "think tanking"

It could be to simple of a concpt is why everyone is missing it. Like the old saying, simpler is betteer. And it couold be everyone over complicates it because they have to make it difficult. And that could be why everyone has failed.

EDIT: I missed this one! This has been stated many times, we are trying to over complicate the matter. Bessler put it in his own words" the answer is where everyone has looked"! It is my opinion that when the answer is found, it will be so simple, it will hit like a slap in the face.

rlortie, since you are an expert, I will quit wasting my time with pm/ou. it is impossible. Thank you for enlightening me.
But I don't need the headache.

I do not qualify myself as an expert by any means, I do R&D almost daily on one design or another. If I were to be considered and expert then I would not be allowed to show my face on a forum recognized as a home for crackpots. But this is my place of choice and I do not recognize it as wasting time, especially if it helps people such as yourself see that what you seek has avoided many for hundreds of years.

You are wasting your time arguing with me with a personal flavor, when you should be in the shop doing your best to prove me wrong.

I could do some R&D to help refine the way I'd like to do. But with what I've heard in here, only success on first effort proves anything.
I think that is sad because it makes the people in here as bad as those that don't support the idea in any form.

"Only Success on first effort proves anything" And out of what mouths of babes did this come from. Edison would look at such a statement in total awe. Each failure must be taken in stride and considered a learning experience.

There is nothing to be sad about and the people here are not as bad as those who do not support the idea. Most of us do support the idea. Of what value would a forum such as this be if all agreed it is impossible.

The only point that I have tried to make to you and other members reading this thread, Math is not going to construct a wheel. You must do that to prove or disprove your mathematical thesis or theory. Then it is no longer a theory, but law. It may or may not be in the accepted laws and theory's of physics. You will never know unless you build it.

Heed the quote at the bottom of Kas's posts!!!!

Ralph

[P-Motion]

Kas,
I can do a design where an arm is always extended and for 45 degrees of rotation. And the arm being moved back into position does not become a negative potential.
So how much weight/force is needed to move how much mass on what type bearing ?
If they can't answer that, then they have not worked to a standard.
But then, my own gut instinct based on the fact that I have gone to school for something similar and have worked with heavy power generation equipment do like the mechanics. But I think having worked with boilers, turbines and generators does not qualify me as having a mechanical background.
My own gut instinct tells me everyone else did it wrong. For the simple reason they did not pay attention to detail. That is why "something like" is an acceptable response.

P,

I know where your coming from with the math proof.

IMO, there are 3 kinds of gravity wheeler - theorists, realists and theo-realists.

All math can do is theoretically guide you to a positive or negative conclusion.
I trusted the maths on too many occasions only to be let down when confronted with an expensive failure.

Math is important of course but it must be backed up with the gut instinct Ralph was talking about.
Through experience, I am know able to calculate mentally if a concept is worth trying or not.
It is sad but, I think in angular velocity, inertia and torque in every daydream.

As for differences of opinion. It is good for the soul to have a meaningful debate sometimes. Take Ralph for instance (I hope he doesn't mind me using him as an example), I respect his judgment above most on this forum. But we both fervently disagree on one subject - namely pinning pivots to a wheel. Only one of us is going to be right in the end, that is, if someone cracks this enigma.

You may well be right 'P' with your conclusions and I sincerely hope you are but my advice (if worth anything) is don't trust maths alone.
It will creep up on you and bite you on the butt.

Kas

[KAS]

P,
If you can do that then thats brilliant!

But the most important quadrant for the extension to occur is not between 90 to 180 deg but an out of step quadrant of 45deg to 135 deg (2 oclock to 4 oclock) on the descent.
This is where the leverage (max torque) is at its most valuable.

Can you achieve this without countertorque?

If so, you got my full attention!

Kas

[rlortie]

Kas,

You wrote;

As for differences of opinion. It is good for the soul to have a meaningful debate sometimes. Take Ralph for instance (I hope he doesn't mind me using him as an example), I respect his judgment above most on this forum. But we both fervently disagree on one subject - namely pinning pivots to a wheel. Only one of us is going to be right in the end, that is, if someone cracks this enigma.

Thank you for the recognition! No I do not mind you using me as an example. There is nothing I would like better than to have someone prove me wrong about symmetrical pinned pivots. If it can be done, I believe the answer would soon follow.

I like to bring up the issue occasionally, get the newer members involved in the debate. Who knows maybe someday a "Newbie' will say pick up on it and solve the issue.

I have a submitted design of such configuration with a new twist. I told the member that it was futile. He of course wishes me to build anyway in hopes of refuting my statement. I have agreed to construct it, for his sake and mine. If by any chance it should hold merit, then I will have proved myself wrong! But all past experiences have not biased my opinion It will be a while as I have prior clients in the waiting room.

Ralph

[P-Motion]

Kas,
I have a question for you.
If a 12" arm extends to 15.026" @ 37 degrees, what matters?
If the ramp that controls the weights path from the top drops from 2.415 to 2.000 inches (straight line between points), is the only thing that matters the force exerted on the wheel where the weight extends beyond it ?
If so, then the weight would be creating momentum until it is in a balanced position again.
This would mean that it has the potential to create some force from about 90 degrees to 180 degrees if top is 0 degrees.
With that in mind, a 4 arm prototype would probably work.

P,
If you can do that then thats brilliant!

But the most important quadrant for the extension to occur is not between 90 to 180 deg but an out of step quadrant of 45deg to 135 deg (2 oclock to 4 oclock) on the descent.
This is where the leverage (max torque) is at its most valuable.

Can you achieve this without countertorque?

If so, you got my full attention!

Kas

[Fletcher]

If the difficulty in getting started P is finding & building a suitable telescoping mechanism then you might consider a simple analogue I once used - I went to the hardware store & bought 'draw runners' - these extend out & back again with little friction - you can get them in many different lengths - you then have to have some catch & release mechanism to hold it at various lengths - a simple spring loaded lever fitting into a notch or hole would do.

Everybody is right - Math used accurately is a descriptive & predictive tool - so far you haven't built anything to prove the alignment of the theory with reality & so its predictive qualities are unknown.

[P-Motion]

If the difficulty in getting started P is finding & building a suitable telescoping mechanism then you might consider a simple analogue I once used - I went to the hardware store & bought 'draw runners' - these extend out & back again with little friction - you can get them in many different lengths - you then have to have some catch & release mechanism to hold it at various lengths - a simple spring loaded lever fitting into a notch or hole would do.

Everybody is right - Math used accurately is a descriptive & predictive tool - so far you haven't built anything to prove the alignment of the theory with reality & so its predictive qualities are unknown.

Fletcher,
I know I haven't built anything yet. But then, I am looking for a job also. Somehow that is a bigger problem, but then I have time to consider the idea now. So why not use it ?
Then when I am in position to test the idea, I will have a better idea of what I am hoping to do. Something like measure twice, cut once.
Also, this is supposed to be impossible according to a lot of people. I might as well try to have a little fun with it. I think it is funny. I thought I was serious about it, now I know the difference.
Kas,
If the ramp is placed 7.986" to the right and 6.018" down from the plane of the axis, it would allow for a .982" drop.
One thing that might be possible is to place a ramp that pushes the weight out some in the top right quadrant. When the lower arm is extended, the upper arm could have its' path elongated.
An example of this is at 30 degrees, it is 10.632" above the axis. At 45 degrees, it is 8.484" above the axis. And of course, at 60 degrees, it is 6" above the axis. Since it would be moving downward and not the primary over-balance, it might be possible to start extending it early.
Of course, if a person wished for the wheel to rotate to 160 degrees before the ramp is involved, for every 18" of radius, the arm could extend 1". And I think that might be the best way myself. Of course, a low friction bearing is always helpful. But a little math.
There would be about a 2.5% force differential. And if like you suggested, the top could be extended early, it could be 4%.
Myself, I think I like that idea the most.

[KAS]

P,

I am trying to picture your design.
If I am right, you intend to use a ramp in the lower quadrant to move or extend an arm in the opposite quadrant. Is that right?

If so, then it will not work. That is because any benefit that may occur as a result of the weight/arm extensions would be lost through the massive friction that would occur on the ramp. No matter how good your bearings are.

Attached is a patented design utilising a ramp to extend opposite weighted arms.

It was a waste of money patenting it as it will never work.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=3797

Kas

[P-Motion]

Kas,
Are you sure that won't work ? ;)
What I've been discussing is four independent arms. To give you an idea, if 3 arms are 18", the 4th can extend to 20".
Ther ramp that would support the weight would be between the axis and the weight. This would allow for the weight to still exert force on the wheel.
I have thought about what you said about getting more power by extending above the axis. Maybe.
With an arm extended from 90 degrees to 150 degrees, can enough momentum be generated ?
It's something that would need to be played with.

Jim

I am trying to picture your design.
If I am right, you intend to use a ramp in the lower quadrant to move or extend an arm in the opposite quadrant. Is that right?

If so, then it will not work. That is because any benefit that may occur as a result of the weight/arm extensions would be lost through the massive friction that would occur on the ramp. No matter how good your bearings are.

Attached is a patented design utilising a ramp to extend opposite weighted arms.

It was a waste of money patenting it as it will never work.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=3797

Kas

[KAS]

Yes I am sure Jim.

Many have tried a ramp design in various ways over the years.
I myself experimented with this concept in 2004 and did a little experiment.

I placed a single (slidable) rod through a pivot at an angle of 45 deg and put a bearinged wheel on both ends. Then I placed the wheel at the bottom on the start of the ramp. It didn't move. Then I slowly added weights to the upper end until the wheel rolled up the ramp.
The mass required was double that of the ramp end to get it going cancelling any benefit.

Newtons 3rd law prevailed. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction".
The problem with this design is that there are 2 friction areas: the wheels or rollers on the ends or anywhere on the rod where it acts on the ramp and the sliding moment of the rod at the pivot centre.

Friction is our biggest enemy on this site and should be reduced (or avoided) at all times.

Hope this helps but if you are still sure then you must build, if only to satisfy your own curiosity.

Kas

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Kas and Ralph....

As for differences of opinion. It is good for the soul to have a meaningful debate sometimes. Take Ralph for instance (I hope he doesn't mind me using him as an example), I respect his judgment above most on this forum. But we both fervently disagree on one subject - namely pinning pivots to a wheel. Only one of us is going to be right in the end, that is, if someone cracks this enigma.

I am with Ralph on this one, Kas....both he and I have been round and round with a former member and symetrical points around a disc (wheel).

If there is nothing that breaks the symetry....it will not work. Basically, if all of the weight is applying itself at symetrically pinned points on the wheel....nothing changes. If one hopes that increasing the weight just a bit....to all the weights, will give just that extra bit of "OOOMPH", they are mistaken....you have just increased the weight of the whole contraption.

If you find that any change you make....has to be made symetrically (to all the other like components around the whole of the wheel)....you haven't changed a damn thing....it is still symetrical. To alleviate this would require an additional device that would offset the symetry. I hope this makes it a little more clearer about the "pinning"....


Steve

[KAS]

Hi Steve,

Interesting point. But what if the action on the pivots is not symmetrical around the wheel - a state of imbalance occurs. Both Ralph and yourself are way off the mark believing that it will not have an effect.

The problem is - trying to move the weight around the pivots and Ralph is bang on the mark with this one. Countertorque always occurs whenever an attempt is made to rotate it.
Whereas a slotted pivot would not have such problems and I think that this is where the mix up occurs.

I can assure you that a wheel will rotate with static pivots. Its just keeping the damn thing rotating is the problem.

Kas

[rlortie]

Kas,

I can assure you that a wheel will rotate with static pivots. Its just keeping the damn thing rotating is the problem.

Best self explanatory sentence I have read here for a while! one needs to read it slowly a couple of times. My automobile wheels are held in place by five studs (pivot pins) They are symmetrical, the wheel turns the hub but not without the outside force of the engine.

It is not that hard to make a disc and place an even or odd number of pins in it and then balance. Use anything from a paper plate to a CD disk. Hang your mechanical weight shifters on the pins. If you can achieve any self sustaining motion for a total of two revolutions, I want to be the first to hear the news.

IMO you can have sliders you can have counter weights or what ever conglomeration of mechanisms you choose. As long as the transference of all that OB weight is supported by a symmetrical pin, that is where the point of support is and that is where the force is applied.

Ralph