Crazy as can be wheel concept

[ME]

I have given up.
I've thrown in the towel.
I've stopped kidding myself i can do the impossible.

I tried for long enough, one must learn to accept things, irrespective if we like them or not.
I was a believer, i really thought i could do it.
Seeing that other people had maneged it, i thought i'd give it go.
It has been a complete waste of time. i could have been doing other things way more constructive.
I'm just fed up with going around in circles and not being able to understand what the hell should be happening.
I often thought i was making progress, only to learn it was just an illusion.
If i try this it may work if i try that it may work, fat chance, there is just no way it is going to happen.
The frustration of believing i had finally maneged to actually understand how to make it work and the deception of the bitter truth that i haven't.
I just can't take the psychological strain any more.
I've given up.

Oh well, you tried...

Note that it was already considered impossible before you tried.
Yet the question still remains: What did Bessler actually build and how did he manage to fool so many respectable scientists who's concepts are still valid these days and are by no means fools.
As we can't proof the negative then besides trickery there also might still be a chance Bessler found a very unusual mechanical principle.

At a slow pace I just keep investigating and looking for a principle that will match a reply that sounds like:
- "It shouldn't actually do that, yet because of [w] the mechanism has a high probability to do [x] so we can't calculate [y] as a definitive answer but it will still approach [z]."
For me Perpetual Motion is actually a vehicle to (also) learn other stuff: Who knows what comes out of it. As such,for me, a waste of time it is not.

I'm just fed up with going around in circles and not being able to understand what the hell should be happening.

Who isn't.

The whole issue of a thing that should be happening but yet isn't is that you can't understand it until it's actually conceptualized (= collected, gathered, conceived, taken into the mind)

The very meaning of "understanding" is that you stand in the midst of it.
In Dutch there's this verb "begrijpen" which means to same thing: It's literally "to grasp". And you can't 'grasp' something that's not there until it is a concept.

Because of all the known/conceptualized Scientific principles it is taught that Perpetual Motion can't happen. Such implies that you can't understand the perpetual-motion concept from known Science, but can understand why it fails. So you can only understand that it can't happen even though you know it literally means: "Continuous motion".
So that's what you have to invent yourself: a mechanical concept that's never seen in public before and probably not done (often) before and which is a principle that's an outlier of Physics.
Creating something unique is never easy. I think that failing to do so is not the same as defeat. Some things are just unique or difficult for a reason.

Also, if you don't understand how your own inventions/concepts actually worked and failed to be perpetual every single time then how did you actually imagine to find a true working principle?
Or even better, how would you explain a working principle to the World (and yourself) other than: "batteries are not included!"?

[Robinhood46]

ME,
I wasn't talking about PM, i was talking about simulation programmes on that stupid computer of mine with Windows 10.

[raj]

Thank you ME.

I am surprised. No build it advice!

Working out the strength of a football team by just concentrating on the weakness of two players, may not give the right answer, to place your bet on.

I would ask any forum member who is interested in my drawing, to look at it as a video shot static clip and try to find the torque by physics means of each of the weights counter-clockwise and clockwise and find which direction this drawing it will rotate if suddenly it comes to life.

Please ME, I am not concerned so much about weight losing or gaining GPE.
I am concerned with coming up with a design that would provide rotational torque, in spite of a weight out of a team of several weights, losing GPE now and again.l

Connectivity is a requirement of more than one pair to bypass obstacle.

Raj

[MrTim]

Wed May 20, 2020 4:10 am
YES, the motion of pendulums looks a bit similar, but how the lifting is done differs COMPLETELY.

I hadn't seen this Path_finder's design before you've shown me today.

His design of doing lifting by cords/springs/levers inside a single wheel, has been tried by many, including me, in several concepts.

I FEEL attempts are being made to show there is NOTHING , no part/s, NEW in my Pendulum Wheel concept.
THAT doesn't worry me.

Raj

That's a great animation. My take on it is: Is there a way to get rid of the long arms (from the rim to the weight) while keeping the same movement? I feel that the connection to the rim is what kills this design. Just an observation... ;-)

[raj]

This is specially for ME - Marchello's attention:

I can't do simulation.
I can't build.
I can only DRAW and explain by words, to show how my concept works.

Drawing1 shows start positions of weights.
Drawing2 shows positions of weights after 11.75 degrees turn clockwise.
Drawing3 shows positions of weights after 22.5 degrees turn clockwise.
Drawing4 shows position of weights after 34.25 degrees turn clockwise.
Drawing1 shows resetting back to start position of weights.

My torque calculations workings is shown on top of each drawing.

Raj

[agor95]

ME,
I wasn't talking about PM, i was talking about simulation programmes on that stupid computer of mine with Windows 10.

:-)

Freedom starts after you escape Microsoft

Fly Free

[ME]

This is specially for ME - Marchello's attention:

I can't do simulation.
I can't build.
I can only DRAW and explain by words, to show how my concept works.

Hmm...
I think I'm fairly sure that I paid enough attention to see you're perfectly capable of building good enough props to perfectly show the effects of your designs.
You also showed outsourced simulations.
I think you can.

Working out the strength of a football team by just concentrating on the weakness of two players, may not give the right answer, to place your bet on.

In that metaphor I just note that the football just does not hold its air.

Please ME, I am not concerned so much about weight losing or gaining GPE.
I am concerned with coming up with a design that would provide rotational torque, in spite of a weight out of a team of several weights, losing GPE now and again.

In words, in graphs, in simulation and mathematical constructs I tried to show how this potential energy relates to this torque... not only me, others tried that too.
Somehow we need something else.

I am surprised. No build it advice!

Oh sorry..
Please doubt my explanations.

• Just build and observe what happens.

Just don't be surprised it doesn't auto-rotate.
I only answered that obvious follow-up question: Why will it not auto-rotate?.

You could also try to answer: What is actually this "rotational torque" that's powered by gravity?
Or, how did Bessler convince the bystanders that his rotating wheel was able and capable of producing work?
Or, as a seemingly easy one, when torque is something that drops at a distance then how does that relate to just dropping something straight down at any place?
Just questions. Answerable by Physics.
The other option is to only have assumptions.

I would ask any forum member who is interested in my drawing, to look at it as a video shot static clip and try to find the torque by physics means of each of the weights counter-clockwise and clockwise and find which direction this drawing it will rotate if suddenly it comes to life.

As I belong to the group "any forum member", I can affirm that your first drawing is 'primed', and will indeed start to rotate clockwise.
Again, the cost of putting weight 2 in that overbalance position is about 1.0 main grid points down.
This overbalance remains more or less constant...
Still it will not auto-rotate when build, so something else must be preventing rotation.

Why will it not auto-rotate?

[raj]

Hats off, ME!

As usual, blind retort.

DON'T tell me that IT won't rotate. WE ALL KNOW THAT, by what we have learnt in life.

I am only fooling about, just like everyone, including you, on this forum.

Raj

[Tarsier79]

What I can tell you regarding your initial drawing: weight 6 compared to 4 will create more counter torque. 3 will be similar, but probably slightly more than 7.
Weight 2 is the interesting one, The amount it falls to get to position 3 is less than 8 is lifted from 7. So I would say 7-8 will try to pull CCW compared to 2-3.

Weight 1-2 will provide more torque moving to that position than 8 moving to 1.

Basically a balanced system.

[raj]

MOST likely my reasoning is completely wrong.

I AM NOT comparing drop of ONE weight to rise of another weight anywhere on the wheel/s.

I AM comparing the total drop(P.E loss) of weights a+b+c ... units on one side of axle/wheel/s to total rise (P.E) gain of weights x+y+z... units on the other side of axle/wheel/s.

BY right, total P.E gain and total P.E loss must be equal.

But, but, but....

BUT if by chance, regardless of P.E gain and P.E loss, NET torque is on any one side of wheel/s, WHEEL/S must rotate, in the direction of the net torque.

THAT'S my take.

Raj

[Fletcher]

That's essentially correct Raj.

In a closed orbital path inside a wheel, which repeats, the GPE Gain and Loss of individual weights must NET to Zero Change.

What we all want is a NET Zero GPE Change thru one complete revolution of the wheel but where the individual weight Torques NET to a Positive value.

IOW's Asymmetric Torque results thru 360 degrees.

This is often described as sustained Imbalance or continuous Out-Of-Balance (OB).

The Torque can be accurately estimated by plotting the positions of weights horizontally from the center vertical line, as you do. The more snap shots you take and calculate at various incremental positions the more accurate will be the Net Torque picture you get.

*** Finding that elusive NET Positive Torque result thru a repeating complete turn is the mechanical challenge we all attempt to conquer.

IMO.

ETA1 : when you give your wheel its first spin or let it begin turning of its own volition, if it does not accelerate and in fact slows down and stops, it will stop in its position of least GPE. The PQ Point. That means that there is NO Sustained Asymmetric Torque capability. It must initially accelerate thru a few revolutions and then hold its RPM to confirm that presumption !

ETA 2 : to summarize ME's topic and thread on 'the importance of raising weights', and his position from a Physics perspective, it is as follows (simplified).

When a weight is positioned laterally from the Center of Rotation (usually the axle) the further horizontally from the axle it is the greater the torque it generates (leverage). The torque is a turning force and is directly proportional to the horizontal distance from the axle and the height the weight can lose as it causes a rotation (GPE loss). IOW's, GPE can be changed to KE/momentum but never (as far as has ever been physically demonstrated) a greater amount. Best or ideal case scenario for a closed path system of weights is zero sum where GPE lost equals KE gain. The math of Physics supports this conclusion as inviolate, under all known mechanical conditions to date.

Therefore to have a mechanical arrangement that generates sustained imbalance (asymmetric torque) would violate the presumptions of Newtonian Physics and the Math that supports it. In effect trash Newton' Laws and CoE, CoM etc.

[Tarsier79]

Agreed Fletcher.

I have tried to beat leverage over and over. For me, instantaneous PE loss is king. You can have a weight fall without driving the wheel, but you cannot lift it up without costing. If there is a trick, I am missing it.

[Fletcher]

We've all missed it T because we have been preoccuppied with B's. avalanche of distracting 'clues'. Except for Raj and a few other smarter ones :7)

Mechanically whatever B. did it was a totally counter-intuitive use of mechanics. IOW's using known about mechanics in a different way as a workaround to the problems (and some) you have outlined above. He turned the problem on its head and reexamined his assumptions. I'm not being critical of you, we have all done it. It's called learning from our mistakes. But it takes a lot of mistakes to let go of what we know.

[Fletcher]

Here's a short vid an old friend (not a member here nor interested in B's. wheels) sent me this morning. Cheeky bugger !

Kind of sums up what we've been talking about. Doesn't get any simpler than this. Crazy as can be but not crazy enough !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9lz3mIT154

[Fletcher]

Agreed Fletcher.

I have tried to beat leverage over and over. For me, instantaneous PE loss is king. You can have a weight fall without driving the wheel, but you cannot lift it up without costing. If there is a trick, I am missing it.

I should have added T IMO that Archimedes Law of Levers is safe in B's. wheels, just as it is in ours.

Mechanical Advantage x Speed Ratio = 1

So to offer a really inescapable conclusion, whilst not being facetious, for what I spelled out above.

1. All our combined mechanical experiences and arrangements, plus Newtonian Physics, says that weights circulating in a closed path have a Net Zero GPE displacement.

2. Such a path of circulation results in Net Zero Torque i.e. no Asymmetric Torque capability.

3. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, and statistically, events 1. and 2. are Mutually Inclusive i.e. they can not occur independently.

4. B's. mechanical workaround made events 1. and 2. Mutually Independent i.e. no longer dependent events. Now we can flip a coin and get a head and a tail at the same time ;7)

Now that's crazy !