Gravity Wheel -or- Motion Wheel

[Grimer]

Mmm. Interesting. Yours seems to be a bit more sophisticated than mine, Jim.

Larger mass in the low EGF balancing a smaller mass in the high EGF. That figures.

I must admit, initially I had weights on each end of the rod and had the whole rod shuffling back and forth. But then I remembered MT34 was it? and all those strings.
If Bessler did adopt a string and rod system then you can see why he didn't want anyone feeling the end of his weights. A large hole for the rod plus a smaller hole for the string not to mention something to attach the string to would have given the game away, rather.

[Andyb]

Hi cloudcamper,i have considered what you have said and decided not to show it yet,on top of the approach i am developing at present i have seen another way to create more force to create energy by allowing the compartment to move at specific points namely 1 oclock and 7 oclock ,i have started to sketch out some ideas and they look very promising .

I was wondering if you had spent any time staring into the etching bessler left in Johns book, its towards the end, the etching of the B, John mentions the bells but makes no reference to the number of them, i think ,i have spoken of these before but no body wants to talk about them ,any how there is 9 of them 2 and 6 are in swing the rest are hanging there, i believe this little etching holds the clues to how all besslers wheels worked its just they are all mixed up together, which really can drive one quite mad ,never the less the shapes he has left here show real purpose not the meandering of a madman but rotation in motion the shape of that motion being a part of the space curve the cups in the lower b under the figure on the left it is very close to shape of a spiral in parts, this shape creates a smooth movement inwards creating again a very low negative torque weight whilst in motion ,that is what i am looking to create now days, i nearly went in to one must go work calls ,take care Andy.

Getterdone sorry to let you down i was in a mood to share every thing but cloadcamper helped me to see things differently i will carry on with my developments and post them if they fail, like every one else except a few highly respected angels ,which i aspire to be but have failed so far,all the best Andy.

[Art]

.

Hi Andyb,

Please accept my sincere apologies for the following message , please understand that I am only the messenger here : )

For about 8 years that particular ‘etching’ in John’s book was my sole inspiration and source of most clues and ideas with which I attacked the challenge of reproducing Besslers wheel .

I had not known about this forum then and Ovyyus had not released the information on the M.T drawings and to top it off I had no computer skills and no computer .

For most of the 8 years I concentrated on the application of cams to manipulate the movement of weights to try and achieve the overbalance that I was then convinced was required to produce the ‘runner’ .

I worked with polycarbonate plastic to produce the cams and various sizes of weighted rings and cylinders varying in weight from about 100g to 2 Kg .

I found that my study of this etching allowed me to work out a system of producing cams to a geometrical /mathematical formula that gave very interesting results in the control of the overbalance of the centre of mass of the weighted rings and cylinders used when mounted on the wheel .

Those 8 years have been the most influential period of my investigations . All the simplistic thinking I had about ’overbalance ’ just evaporated as a result of the approximately 1000 cams that I tested.

I stayed with the experimenting for so long because it was one of the areas that I worked in where I thought I was achieving a slight amount of ‘over unity’ - and still believe so .

Anyway , to make a long story even longer , in late 2008 I stopped off in England on my way through to visit Kassel . John very kindly agreed to meet me to discuss our respective theories . John as I remember it had just started developing the ‘number 5’ clues at that time and I of course was totally obsessed with my spiral shaped cam theories that I had teased out largely based on that etching .

I still remember the total shock I felt when John told me that unfortunately that etching as far as he could remember was not connected to the Bessler documentation , that it had been used only to illustrate the possible type of hammers that Bessler mentions in his publications .

You could have knocked me over with a feather ! For the rest of the day I think I was in an altered state of consciousness ! (and I don't think it was as a result of those very large cups of English coffee I drank even though not a coffee drinker ).

Now after almost 5 years I think I have recovered from the shock I experienced and have rationalised in my own mind what has happened here .

I think that John unknowingly selected the one illustration from his archive of documents (collected in his study of perpetual motion ) that was produced by someone in the 17th /18th century who coded part of a complete theory into that B which is required to produce the wheel . It could have been Bessler himself even (unbeknown to John) .

Now to get access to the whole theory we have to locate the etchings for the other letters ie for E S S L E and R. : ) How about it John ?

Enlargements of that picture from p 195 of John’s book still adorns my workshop and study and bedroom and car and my working folder . It is one beautiful drawing ( I don’t think I’m too biased here)

Thanks for bringing this topic up Andyb , I hope you where sitting down when you read this : )

Seriously though John , is it possible to dig more information out regarding this particular illustration ?

[sequeen]

Jim
I think the wheel is motion wheel.
It is based on my simulation of one cross-lever wheel.
By simulation the CG is not placed in the rotating side. It changes it's position during rotation, but, mainly, CG located in opposite side of rotation.
Everything is disadvantage side. but I feel the swing will overcome the disadvantage. And the collision also do something for shifting CG to the rotating side. But simulation cannot calculate swing or collision.
It will be defined after real building.
As Bessler said someone can lift 1 pound weight by 4 ounces in a wheel, have the solution. I found the solution. But I cannot open it now, because real building is remained.
I will let you know after my experiment.

I have one more question. What is the size of diameter of the wheel and diameter of main axle in Bessler's last wheel, in MKS unit?
I cannot understand feet or pound. I need Meter, Kilogram Unit.
The size is very important in designing my lever lifter.
The ratio of diameters will be referenced to my new design.

After fail of my building I was too much depressed. If I did not make a concept of lever lifter, I cannot endure this situation. I live because there is hope. If I do not have any hope or new vision, I think I cannot live. Hope and vision is the reason for my life.
Today I made a compass(instrument to drawing circle) by a wood stick.
By using the compass I made a drawing on a paper. After get back home, I made a simulation of the drawing with hopeful mind. But result was bad. But I do not believe the simulation result. It is same to my last building failure.
But I will do and I can do another thing until I have no more idea on it.
It is 11:30PM in my country. I have drunken a bottle of Soju (20% 350mm Korean traditional beverage). Too much drink is not good for health, but adequate amount of liquor is good for health and mental health.
SK

[jim_mich]

1 foot = 12 inches
1 inch = 2.54 centimeters
1 pound = 16 ounces
1 ounce = 28.349523125 grams
1 pound = 453.59237 grams

Bessler's last wheel was about 12 feet diameter.
12 feet × 12 = 144 inches.
144 inches × 2.54 = 365.76 centimeters, or about 3.66 meters.

Bessler let some witnesses feel one of the weights while wrapped in a handkerchief, and the witness said it felt to be about 4 pounds, which would make it about 1.814 kg.

The last wheel was said to be able to lift a 'hundredweight' to the second story window where the wheel was located. A hundredweight was about 112 lbs, which would make it about 50.8 kg.

No one knows how heavy the wheels, but Bessler had to remove the weights to make the wheel lighter before he could move the wheel to a second support, which he did to prove the wheel was not turned remotely.

Also, if you are using Microsoft Windows, it has a calculator program, which has a unit conversion feature. There are also on-line conversion websites.

[rlortie]

sequeen,

Here is a link for a free desk top converter download, place a short cut on your desk top or task bar. while working with you, I keep it open and minimized for ready access.

http://joshmadison.com/convert-for-windows/ This is a free and very efficient calculator

Ralph

[cloud camper]

The wheel is powered neither by gravity nor by motion. It is a bi-state (binary) oscillator possessing low and high energy states that work together, stairstepping off each other to higher and higher energy values. The child's swing is our base model.

It is the symbiotic relationship between gravity and inertia that causes the motion (and only at the process boundary conditions), not a single element. All elements are required. None can be left out.

This behavior is only allowed under the 1st law because individual weights come to a dead stop before switching energy states. This is the loophole that allows non conservative output as this is the only time a change in energy states is permitted in a rotating system.

JB was obviously aware of this limitation as clearly shown in MT138. The impacts depicted do not create energy, rather they permit our 1st law loophole to be utilized in a full rotary mechanism. In our child's swing the impacts are not necessary since the weights stop by themselves.

Gravity is then only employed as a transit mechanism to translate mass from one energy state to the other. It is not consumed only borrowed and returned but is essential to the mechanism. The wheel would not work in space, just as a child's swing would not work in space.

The limiting factor is work consumed in secondary accelerations of the weights that travel normal to the circumference of the wheel. As wheel rpms increase, the acceleration and deceleration of the in and out motions of the weights begin to consume all the available energy produced by the wheel, enforcing an rpm limit.

@Andy, I wasn't aware of the diagrams you refer to. I will download John's book!

[Grimer]

I like it. Can you expand the concept with a particular instance.

I'm working towards something similar only my dead stop for t is dt, for dt is dt² and for dt² is dt³.

Likewise with distance.

So things don't come to an absolute dead stop but a *for all intents and purposes dead stop*.

This allows the "independent" variables to interact.

When moving 100 units along the "independent" x dimension one moves 1 unit along the "independent" y dimension and 1/100 th of a unit along the "independent" z dimension. This concept is most easily understood when applied to the three orthogonal independent directions of space but it also applies more generally to dimensions in the dimensional analysis sense.

Moving back down one encloses an area in the xy plane which is second derivative energy.

Try it out with the Carnot cycle plotting the variables on proportional scales (logarithmic) - where the xy plane is the PV plane, the z dimension, T - and you'll see what I mean.

Edit: and I should add that in the Milkovic pendulum they seem to be missing a variable, i.e. the horizontal inertia. Trying to operate without this variable is like trying to operate Carnot without the temperature variable. One is locked in two dimensional analysis dimensions and cannot enclose any area.

From 1.30 to 4.30 the pendulum is pulling against the horizontal inertia of the pivot. This needs to have some kind of prestressed spring inserted so that an Ersatz Gravity variable can operate in a way analogous to the Newtonian Gravity variable operating at the anvil. Obviously the effect has to be an order of magnitude different to make that variable effectively independent.

[Andyb]

Hi Art, thanks for the info ,yes i am shocked even sad but not surprised,i suppose i am getting used to failure and growing through it,just another lesson .
Art i was shocked to fell what you went through there at Johns and i am so humbled by your sharing this with me, and every one else ,i imagine ,Art back to this etching, i to have looked at the potential to use cams to create leverage and have had excellent results except there is too much weight in the arm or movement the exchange of force is great but no i can not make it work ,so i put it to one side and refocused on the rotational potential in a weight spinning in the cups and have seen great potential for a very light balanced system, but again no go ,some thing will always draw me back to this etching Art, like you i love it, the secret is in there somewhere, if John comes back and says he found it in a comic book, heck i do not know what i will do, but a short journey to my local mental health practitioner will be in order ,i do not think it has all really sunk in jet, John could you please put me out of my misery, could it have been besslers or not .
Cloudcamper, well is it worth looking at i am not sure ,i have to justify it to myself somehow so i will keep my denial system running for a bit longer but that's my problem,dude i have not had the time to really digest what it is you have to say here,but i am in deep respect of your words and feel there is a great truth in what you say ,i will read again soon, all the best blue .

[rlortie]

Cloudcamper wrote:

Gravity is then only employed as a transit mechanism to translate mass from one energy state to the other. It is not consumed only borrowed and returned but is essential to the mechanism. The wheel would not work in space, just as a child's swing would not work in space.

Would you care to elaborate on this statement, I find it rather confusing. I always looked upon earth bound gravity as a "constant". A continually occurring condition, factor or quantity that is invariant in specified circumstances, an unchanging invariable.

If you have found a way to borrow and then payback I would not call this of a conservative nature.

Ralph

[cloud camper]

Hi Ralph - I was just referring to simple pendulum dynamics. Gravity (vertical PE) is not consumed but is just borrowed and returned to transit from one arc extremity to the other.

The nonconservative action occurs in the child's swing at the arc extremities when the child stops in midair and the pendulum radii is changed.

If the child swings a full 90 degrees from start position, only a small lateral (horizontal) movement of CoM is required. This requires essentially zero work as no vertical displacement of the child's weight is necessary and then exactly parallels the lateral in and out motions of the wheel weights as described by JB.

With the wheel we can achieve a much greater lateral CoM shift than the child swinger can effect.

Note that the child swing is a switched (commutated) system as the child switches pendulum radii at the exact instant when the 1st law describes the swing as an open system (child stopped in midair at arc extremity). This is the boundary condition for the process as described by the 1st law. When the process is at the boundary condition, the system is open and is not bound by 1st law conservation requirements as all energy conversion processes have stopped (even if only for an instant.)

This switching action closes out the old closed system (one swing from one arc extremity to the other) and initiates a new closed system with all
new parameters until the opposite 90 degree swing boundary is reached and the horizontal CoM is switched again.

This switching action is comparable to the commutator function in an electric motor or camshaft/valve system in an ICE.

All rotating shaft electrical or IC engines of any type require switching or commutation functions to operate. This is because all energy transformation processes in nature are of finite length. Not employing a switching process in our wheels means we have assumed an infinitely long and unbroken conversion process. No motor operates this way.

Our proposed switching mechanism then becomes a direct bypass of the height for distance problem that plagues all wheel designs (except for JB's).

Switching was also employed in the Keenie wheel (assuming it ever worked as claimed) for all the same reasons although the switching mechanism was very unreliable as evidenced by the boxes of broken and bent levers. How did they all get broken and bent if it wasn't doing something out of the ordinary?

[Grimer]

Well done Cloud.


I've seen a brilliant argument to show why the Keenie must work. Interestingly enough it involves stopping one process before starting another so your insight into the nature of an open system will be valuable in getting others to "see" that the argument is both valid and obvious.

From a theoretical point of view I think we have the problem licked. Once builders can take that in it will give them the confidence to overcome the practical hurdles of implementation.

[Grimer]

...
If the child swings a full 90 degrees from start position, only a small lateral (horizontal) movement of CoM is required. This requires essentially zero work as no vertical displacement of the child's weight is necessary and then exactly parallels the lateral in and out motions of the wheel weights as described by JB.
...

Interestingly enough this also shows the need for a horizontal action with the Milkovic pendulum which is only a small swing when all said and done.
One can store NG and EG energy from the pivot deformations and release at appropriate points in the cycle just as in the case of the Carnot where temperature and pressure swaps are stored in the lower adiabatic leg and released in the upper.

[rlortie]

Gentleman,

It appears that we have gone from "Occam's razor" back to "Zeno's paradoxes" which is where we we about five years ago.

When the pendulum bob reaches its maximum amplitude it ceases to hold any kinetic energy, it ceases in motion, defying gravity just as Zeno's arrow it occupies the same space as it did when in motion.

To borrow this lost Pe, we give it back exponentially in Cf as the bob passes six, or its true vertical position. But we still pay the price of friction or is that the interest due on the loan?

Please forgive me, but this forum has been there and done that, to often for me to have much faith in a pendulum or Cf operated device.

Ralph

[Grimer]

...
It appears that we have gone from "Occam's razor" back to "Zeno's paradoxes" which is where we we about five years ago.
...

There's been a lot of new members in those five years and a lot of new ideas which are beginning to bear fruit. The early years planted the seed, so.....

" ... lift up your eyes, and see the countries.
For they are white already to harvest."