Anyone suffer health problems over this?

[raj]

Comparing a WOOD with a TREE???
GPE lost by a single weight will never regain by ITSELF.

The four green circles in the drawing represents four identical weights' positions in a large wheel on horizontal axle (in black), by a concept design,, that would force the four weights positions to reset every 45 degrees rotation.

We can deduce by sight that the weights on the right will provide positive torque and the one weight on the left will provide negative torque and that there will be a net positive torque to make wheel turn clockwise.

For a 45 degrees turn, there will be ZERO NET GPE LOST OR GAINED.
But there will be continuous TORQUE clockwise

It's anyone guess what would happen if such a concept design COULD BE built.

Raj

[Fcdriver]

The age of the computer, should enlighten, and make people smarter, not ignorant!

I don't want to ruin your day too much... so let's not talk about this.

I want to know do we learn from mistakes, from failed attempts?

Some people can do crazy and dangerous stuff where 'normal' people just die.

Sometimes succeeding at something is about just doing it: a mental hurdle thingy.
That's what this whole naive yes-can syndrome appeals at.
But that's hardly an innovation.
In the worst case it's simply reckless behavior and hope for the best.
But usually it's about copying something.
Don't get me wrong, that could still be hard.

Most often you need to know what Not to do, or how to learn and apply control-feedback to avoid catastrophic failure.
And all FC's arguments are in that category. We have an idea it can be done, because it extrapolates on things already known, like:
-'We' could already transplant things, like toes: just not hearts;
-'We' already saw birds do it and there were already glider machines: just not powered flight with steering capabilities;
-Things could already go faster than sound;
All required careful trial and error and some 'sacrificial' deaths...

Now Perpetual motion...
No known principles besides a burning sun (which we already use for the majority of things) work long enough to be regarded as "forever".
Engineering a machine without any idea on the working principle requires a lot of trial, a lot of failure, a lot of error, a lot of hoaxes, and apparently a lot of bullshit we can all simply counter with experiments and verifiable calculus.
The only arguably reasonable observed evidence which we historically have are vague statements from a guy named Bessler, maybe a hint from his patron Carl.

We are searching here for something simple, yet a totally unconventional engineering mistake.
But the questions are: What is 'simple', what is a 'mistake', and will it 'work' forever nevertheless, or work 'forever'.
As always, any discovery requires perseverance and a clear mind.
Otherwise it wouldn't be hard to do and hard to believe.
And yet..

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses.

They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers.

But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Silent, does the combined weight raise up?

Would it be logical too when you'd reverse the explanation?
- The weight on the lazy tong drops slightly, this makes to long lever weight shoot up in direction of rotation.

How many objects in the know universe sit still vs rotate? Why is this?

[raj]

Bessler's wheel WAS NOT a perpetual motion machine that would ROTATE forever, like the SUN.

IT could be STOPPED and could be RESTARTED at any time.

It was what I am calling a SELF-ROTATING wheel.

Raj

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Raj,
the Bessler wheel is a converter like a wind mill in the wind, the water wheel in the water etc.

It is a special technic to extract the "Gravity Energy".
Of course it is a self sustaining, self-rotating wheel powered with "Gravity Energy".
The wheel will not turn if you switch the "Gravity Energy" off.
The Center of Gravity must not sit above the axle as the technicians try to tell you.

A wind mill has also a force only from one side, but it is able to turn.
A wind mill turn because we have a speed difference in between.

So with your construction you fulfill the speed difference between up and down in the gravity field. FAST UP and SLOW DOWN in a circle process.

One of Besslers clues, weights are lifted in a flash.

[Fletcher]

snip ... namely, the Principle of Perpetual Motion. ... snip ... ; the cause of it all being a humble tool which the famous scholars of the day have as yet seen in but an incomplete form. ... snip

silent .. looks like you've had plenty of feedback from your post so I won't address that, as there's nothing I could add to what others have said in that regard.

What I can do is perhaps help narrow the focus, subject to my own prejudices. So take with salt as you choose.

I re-present the important part of Bessler's quote again. His humble "tool" was not called a "toy" in that quote. It is a 'common or garden' tool (like an abundant plant grown in an English common or garden). It means common, unexceptional, ubiquitous. That is the straight forward lever. That is the cause of Bessler's PM Principle. Are pantographs and scissors run of the mill ? Not to say their actions don't have a place in the solution but they weren't the humble tool spoken of imo.

Sounds way to simple right. Dismiss it immediately. Levers have been explored and exploited since Adam was in shorts. We know all about them and Mechanical Advantage etc. Yes we do ! There is nothing further to be learned from a common or garden lever ! We know them quite well.

Next I refer you to the Simon Stevins Problem.

http://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Stevin ... Scroll down both pages to find the bits on geometry and his Law of Equilibrium on an Inclined Plane, or equilibrium of forces problem, that he identified circa 1500's.

This is the crux of the problem of every intended PMM, that is anticipated to circulate and replenish GPE and do external Work, from gravity force alone. What is often described as a closed path system. And Stevin's simple visual appraisal is absolutely correct. If it turns thru a sector (or division) and looks the same then no Work is done and there is no disequilibrium of forces to initiate and sustain that rotation i.e. no asymmetric torque is possible. No spinny, no turny. This is an inescapable mechanical truth ! These are what are called faux PM wheels, or "untrue PM wheels". There simply is no sustained torque imbalance. MT is full of them. Do you spend your time creating only designs that are closed path ? What are the chances that one will work ? I'm going to say zero, but take your own advice and counsel on that (we always do) !

So jumping ahead what is the purpose of closed path wheels ? Well, its not to directly create a sustained torque imbalance resulting in sustained wheel rotation. That's the job of the Prime Mover. The faux wheel is the secondary element of the package, every bit as necessary as the Prime Mover. It has another purpose ! And until the mind set can change to this perspective then the humble tool will forever remain in the shed and in the garden. And "scholars of the day have as yet seen in but an incomplete form" to bring it directly back to Bessler.

"A lion doesn't concern himself with the opinions of a sheep". Bessler was the lion who looked at the problem differently. It's a challenge, but can you ?

[Johndoe2]

To address your question ME.

https://youtu.be/g7osGNgxHd4

This is from:
Synergy is the creation of a whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts. The term synergy comes from the Attic Greek word συνεργία synergia[1] from synergos, συνεργός, meaning "working together".

[Zhyyra]

@Fletcher If the Archimedes lever is the simple tool that explains it AND since we know that the effects of a weight on a lever are that the weight is "seen" at the pivot point....

Here is my latest sketch where we have the "horse" leading the cart in the form of a lever pivoting near the hub. As that weight falls forwards, it causes the weight on the lazy tongs to shoot upwards. Since the weight on the lever is seen at the pivot point, that should be fairly balanced around the periphery of the wheel. The weights on the lazy tongs will be seen on the framework they slide upon.

In the spirit of the BesslerWheel.com forum, feel free to criticize this drawing and trash me. I'm a cynic now lock, stock, and barrel.

silent

Hi Silent,

After noticing something "special" about scissor-jacks a little while back I built the concept that you sketched. Needless to say, it was a non-runner. But, I did learn a lot from the exercise.
Depicted here is one of the jacks from the build.
The wheel has since been emptied and is about to be refilled with other parts :-)

[ME]

Johndoe2. Ok, now mechanize it.

Zhyyra, that looks really cool.
Perhaps you know: How heavy does the lever-weight need to be compared to the lazy-tong weight before the lazy-tong shoots up?

[Johndoe2]

Me you just asked for an example now you want me to do the leg work too? Lol. I know how this game is played ( we do it at work sometimes usually on apprentices lol) Next you'll have me building your wheel. 😂😂😂

[ME]

JohnDoe... ugh.
It was meant as a rhetorical request.
But it is your "mechanism", so it is your wheel...
Though as-is you may find yourself feeding your machine some sandwiches now and then.

The rule with the shown mechanism (<snip>) where a lever interacts with the lazy-tongs is the same as always.
And this rule is: It moves in a way where the total GPE drops.
I'm curious about any counter pattern one can come up with.

When we ignore that people actively work the system during that trampoline-performance, then your demonstration shows the mechanism of momentum transfer.
The total GPE still needs to drop for inducing momentum in the first place before it's reflected upwards by a spring.

Sorry, the total GPE does not increase during the whole action sequence.
The rule remains: "It moves in a way where the total GPE drops".

Also, 'we' are still in the dark about the Lazy-tong vs Weighted lever situation.

[Fcdriver]

GPE is not compared to a spring, a mass does not increase in weight as lifted, it is the harmonic motion which changes the speed of lift, the speed of lift refers to F= MxA

[raj]

GPE that matters, resides in the COM of the wheel/s, regardless of what position this COM is in the wheel/s.

And it is the position of this COM of the wheel/s that will decide which way the wheel/s will turn or not turn.

SIMPLY.

Raj

[silent]

.

[silent]

.

[Johndoe2]

Fc from the posts that i have seen of yours,i think we are on the same path and you are probably my closest competition.