We All Need to Face Up to the Limits of OB torque

[johannesbender]

Technically ,the correct word for most here , would be engineer , not necessarily a career engineer , but engineers for sure.

[Fletcher]

Hey Dave .. a couple of cents. My comments in blue embedded in the points and questions you raised. More talk than torque I'm afraid lol.

Hi, I have been following, or trying to follow ( with my limited knowledge of maths etc. ) the recent posts about using CF and sudden stops, as the driving force for a wheel.

Ultimately a driving force is required to be self-moving. Cf's is a known force generated from a weights inertia in a straight line, and a possible candidate for experimentation and further careful thought, for some people.

Some conclusions have been drawn about using weights and gravity alone being futile in our wheel quest, and all the models I have built have proved this to be true.

I'll expand on this later. Ultimately B's. wheels were 'gravity wheels', utilizing moveable weights. B. tells us "these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself". That's a pretty clear statement (of fact, as he knows it). But as said above there is a universal PM Principle to be discovered which is associated with the use of these moveable weights that generates, or is a catalyst for, the "excess impetus" that allows self-moving and wheel momentum gain. ETA : I say universal PM Principle because B. writes that he has other machines, and in MT suggests, that many types of pseudo-gravity wheels could work, including extraordinarily one's with no weights IINM - that a universal PM Principle could be coaxed from and be applied to, IMO.

The first question I need to ask is, when B pulled the pin or released the brake on his wheel, it started spontaneous rotation. As there is no CF on a stationary wheel, there must have been off centre weights to start it rotating ( even a dumb arse model builder who’s never done a comp. sim. can work that out ! ). So as it starts to rotate, then CF comes into play, have I got that bit right ?

Yes ! That seems a logical deduction in a stationary wheel context. Few would disagree as far as it goes. But it goes further. We all have built gravity wheels (traditional types) that have a PQ position. On either side is positive and negative torque, and the wheel manually placed in these sectors will have torque and automatically rotate back to the PQ position (which is also automatically the position of zero torque and of least GPE). But if you think of the screw-in-bolt braking system of the one-way Draschwitz wheel (friction against the axle), and the witness reports of the later two-way wheels being manually turned to any position, and then starting after a light push, it becomes apparent that both types (called A and B types by JC in PM-AAMS ?) started from any position (they were not "primed" into any position of positive torque to get a running start that we all play around with in our non-working models). IOW's the one-ways had positive torque at all times and all positions. The two-ways probably had (as JC has suggested for years) cancelled torque in all positions from twinned mechs, until a motion bias grows in the direction of a light push start.

So my next question is about computer simms. As last year sometime you may remember I built the model from Ken B’s book of the Gera wheel, which he was convinced was a runner, but it was only a sim and didn’t work. He was so convinced of the sim program replicating a real build that he wrote a book about it, based entirely on that assumption.

Is it possible on a simm, that either the input data has not been completely correct or the program doesn’t in some way duplicate the movement that a model will do ?

As T79 said, often the problem is user related. A disconnect - not understanding the program or its limitations, or sensitivity parameters enough, lack of experience, losing one's head in the excitement. It is just a tool and it can be abused (sometimes unintentionally). ATEOTD it is a kinematic program based on math - and that math is the language that Newton's Mechanics (and his Law's) are formulated and expressed in. I find it quite reliable for most experimental situations, but a real-world build is the ultimate simulation, as I think most of us understand. So there is no need to insert the extra steps of learning a sim to get to a runner. B. didn't. Tho it does help cover more ground quickly once you become a little competent using it. ATEOTD the solution to a runner was said to be extraordinarily simple, probably not requiring sim skills at all.

Dare I suggest such things to the smart arse simmers, coming from a mere model builder ! I’ve built some very complex wheel designs, and have been very surprised at how they move in unexpected ways. Some builds have used a fixed cog in the centre with other cogs bearinged on the wheel as planetary gears with weights mounted on them, producing very complex c.o.g changes as the wheel rotates, hard enough to follow the weights trajectory let alone work out the shifting c.o.g.

In the last maybe 30-40 years from Bessler’s time, our tech knowledge has increased exponentially. So we know so much more now, than Bessler knew LOL. He had no exotic materials, no decent bearings, no computer Simms. So why the heck has none of us got a working wheel ?

We haven't found the PM Principle of mechanically generating excess impetus.

It’s not hiding in my workshop, maybe in George Kunstlers, or A B Hammers, or Fletchers, who knows ! And the people of the time tell us it was so simple. Yeah right !

Yes, it was extremely simple, and easy to understand (Bernoulli letter wrt Karl's statements to ministers etc.) See point above. I have explainable runners in my head lol. In my shed would be better !

By the way has anyone heard from Arthur, from Kiev in the Ukraine. He said he solved the wheel, but had no working model. I emailed him and got a reply, but haven’t heard from him since.

I don't think so.

Who thinks they’re quite clever, and maybe on par with guys like Archimedes, or Galileo, or Leonardo, even Isaac Newton, I think Bessler made those guys look like total dickheads, in comparison. Maybe we need a new pool of young brains, to come up with an answer. They’re not going to come from the universities, cause the PM door gets shut in their face before they’ve had a chance to look around. The professor or lecturer rams Newtons laws down their throat and who’s going to challenge Newton the “God” of science. I did read that Newton once said he thought that Perpetual Motion could be possible, but you won’t find that in the science books.

Yes, Newton thought PM might be possible, apparently (PM-AAMS ?). Here's the problem in a nutshell. We know B's. wheels were 'gravity' wheels - take them into space beyond gravity's influence in a geostationary earth orbit, and they won't work. He tells us the the weights (in a gravity field by deduction) are the essential parts, and constitute the Perpetual Motion itself. We also know the gravity acceleration and field is conservative. IOW's we could take away gravity acceleration entirely (or add an equal upwards falling gravity field to cancel it) - and B's, wheels would not work ! Therefore ... weights being able to move in a gravity environment is paramount to a successful design, aka the ubiquitous 'gravity wheel' platform. However the math says that the physics formulas and Newton's Laws (and LOT) are circular, and often self-referencing. This is a limitation of the 'proof' offered for COE and Conservation of Momentum. Yet clearly B's. wheels did do useful work and were self-moving. Therefore that energy came from somewhere and why I propose they ultimately take momentum from the earth-wheel coupling, as a probable hypothesis. If we accept that N's. Laws and the math is correct, as far as it goes. I think a little tweaking will be required.

I’ve rambled on long enough, give me some answers, cut me some slack, oh wise ones. My blank wheel on very good bearings, awaits the fitting or special bits, to make it go round. I don’t care if it’s a cleverdick with a sim, or a dumb arse with a mechanical design, give me some torque, ( the rotating kind !! )
Dave

... back to top ... Hi, I have been following, or trying to follow ( with my limited knowledge of maths etc. ) the recent posts about using CF and sudden stops, as the driving force for a wheel.

I will say this. B. says in MT52 .. "No wheel is moved by heavy blows, which is more likely to dash the paddles of the wheel into 1,000 pieces, as though with bullets". This makes perfect sense when we stand back and be objective. His 12 foot wheels would not only shake the foundations but destroy the wheels at 4 hits per second. Especially as he says he wants to build bigger and more powerful wheels etc. No way would they last 5 minutes if impact was the driving force in question, even with today's materials ! Impacts were an unavoidable consequence of designing a self-moving runner, but not themselves the driving force behind the PM Principle, IMO.

Happy wheel thinking and building Dave.

[cloud camper]

For those contemplating building a wheel powered by CF and impact these are the springs to use to cushion impact - stainless steel, very good elasticity and designed to compress over a longer distance to avoid coil contact.

Bessler would have killed for these!!

https://www.mcmaster.com/springs/confin ... n-springs/

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Dave W. !!
First off; the Behrendt wheel. That was an incredible job you did , I couldn't have done it-----------------every thing times eight, I don't know how you did it.
I doubt if this is any help; but, this is what I know so far. The weights have to lock to the wheel going down and translate going back up, with the use of directional bearings. It has to be gravity only, no CF, no impacts, (Sorry Cloud Camper & others).

Sims I don't know, I'm just better with a f'en hacksaw, a lot better. My concern is, a sim only defers the problem back to the operator. Also clues, I see clues as a snare to be avoided. I just don't think you can beat real weights, real gravity, real friction, real binding up and real interferences, and the inventive ability to figure it out.

More on translating weights / pendulums if you are interested, my brother has given me a good idea on how to flip them up-------------------------------Sam
PS Dave, the smartest thing I've done so far, is to build only two mechs. or even just one, forget any more than that.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Cloud camper,
Yes, I think you are right, Bessler would have killed for springs like that, but for different reasons----------------------------Sam

[WaltzCee]

Read all about it!!

The biggest problem I have with your concept, MrV, is this. If it's possible to add the same amount of energy to a spinning flywheel yet at the end of every stroke have an increasing amount of energy, would you term the act of adding that energy creating? Are you creating energy?

NOW CONCENTRATE!

[Sam Peppiatt]

Mr. Viberating,
Aren't you leaning much too close to the view of scientist; if you'll forgive me for saying so. Weights can be returned back to the top of the wheel only to fall again, and again. Simply by the use of translating motion, which they, (scientist), seam to be totally oblivious to-------------------------Sam

[Tarsier79]

Weights can be returned back to the top of the wheel only to fall again, and again. Simply by the use of translating motion, which they, (scientist), seam to be totally oblivious to

Science is based on observation, experimentation and measurement. There has been no working wheel for them to observe and measure, and everything that has been measured says it is not possible.

Fact: Besslers wheel either breaks energy conservation laws or was a scam.

Translating weights horizontally will not result in self rotation. You have to lift weights (requiring energy), or pull weights inwards at a certain time (also requiring energy).

[Sam Peppiatt]

Tarsier79,
Forget it----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sam

[Tarsier79]

Sam, there is no need to forget it. Gravity OB requires COM to fall. I hope you have a plan to lift it.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Tarsier79,
Yes, the plan, unfortunately it's incomplete. I don't thing an N3 break is very realistic; or a hoax. By translating, I'm referring to curvilinear translation, not rectilinear translation. I.E. weights that translate in a circle. Which involves pendulums and therefore means, for one reason or another, I'm a godam pervert! Anyway, that's the hart of the invention, or plan, and gets me to about 90 per cent of the struggle, (without repeating all of the details of it), which neither you or any one else want's to hear about--------------------------------Sam

[WaltzCee]

Mother nature isn't obligated to follow Newton's laws.

Just when you think you have her figured out, she throws you a curvilinear.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Yes, Waltcy, every time I think, I have her figured out, she throws me another one, again and again----------------------------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

To anyone, here's the advantage,

Let me try to explain it this way. If you bolt a big weight to the side of a wheel, lift it up to about 12:00 let go of it, it will be OOB and, drive the wheel all the way down to 6:00. Going back up, on the other side, it's still OOB; and it will be OOB all the way back up, then it will simply rotate back down, to 6:00.

With translating weights, and a directional bearing, the weight will switch at 6:00, from being OOB going down, to balanced going up. Which means you don't have to lift the weight back up to the top, and the wheel will make as many as 10 complete revolutions. All, or most of the energy, of the falling weight is imparted to the wheel. It's a huge advantage!

But, because of problems with pendulums, it all get's sh*t canned----------------------------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

Follow up.
The knock on this whole scheme, of coarse, is at the top of the wheel the weights have to flip up, to again be OOB. I have to admit, I don't know how to do it. But, if you could find a way; you would have a runner---------------------------------Sam