Part Three is the Charm

[eccentrically1]

Even take a Help me out here.
How can the weights rotate faster than the wheel?

You could gear the drum 2 to 1 with an inner mechanism.
Or look at planetary gears 3:29 in the video the sun gear rotates faster https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARd-Om2VyiE

There is probably lots of ways when it comes to a drum.

Yes, but. If you geared it to do this, it becomes even more of an issue for the weights to become pinned to the (inner) rim, as well as having even less time to be shifted; fractions upon fractions of a second, even if they were able to move anywhere at all. At the rpm's without any gearing, those issues are concerning.

[daxwc]

It is concerning but it could be geared the other way. 2 drum rotations to 1 mechanism rotation with 16 weights inside which only 8 hit every rotation of the drum. It is impossible to know other than the MT’s leading experiment suggestive applications.

[UbWe]

daxwc,
I guess I really have to qualify things a lot more. I'll take another stab at it. I think it would be very interesting, knowing how to calculate the no load speed of a given gravity wheel. Once a wheel is operational; again, it would be interesting, (to me), to know how to predict the no load speed of it, disregarding friction--------------------Sam

The math I use is I = lw for the moment of inertia and momentum = mv. Then I go with 1/2 * 9/81/seconds = x * OB side lw/lw of the wheel.
That should give you an accurate estimate. With 1/2 * 9.81/seconds, that's averaging the acceleration of gravity. For more accuracy, multiply
the solution by 1/1.57 = 0.64. This is because if a weight rotates on an axis with no counterweight, it will accelerate at 64% the acceleration
of gravity. The vertical drop will accelerate a weight at the same velocity, following the circular path of the wheel requires acceleration caused
by gravity to take longer. I've done tests which let me know that this is accurate for estimating how overbalance allows a wheel to accelerate.
A basic example is if a weight drops 0.981meters then 1 sec/.64 = 1.57 seconds. Then with the difference in I = lw which if overbalance
allows for 60% of the wheel's I = lw then 1.57/60 = 1m/2.62s. And the work required to lift a weight will need to be subtracted from the net
I = lw. This is basically what has helped me to pursue my builds.

p.s., You can find the density of wood and other materials online. Then if you calculate the CoG of each part and its distance from the axle
(torque/counter torque) then algebra will allow you to find the I = lw of a wheel. This is because each part will have a value equal to m * d = x.
And depending on whether you use the metric system (kg/m = n-m) or SAE (lbs./in. = inch pounds) you can factor everything by averaging
the distance and then convert the mass of each weight to the average distance. If a weight is 1.2 times further out than the average distance
then multiply that weight by 1.2. This will allow all of the weights to be added then the average distance will give you your I = lw.
And if a part is closer to the axle than average, then divide it by the % so 70% would be times by 0.7. Then when overbalanced and under
balanced weights are added, they can be factored the same way and added to the balance of each side. This is for rotating speed (RPM)).
With weights, they'll need to be factored by their angle to the axle which would be weight * cosine = x and distance would be calculated the
same way d * cosine = x, this would be calculating torque and counter torque. Then you can subtract the under balanced side from the
overbalanced side to realize net torque. Then f = ma will allow you to convert acceleration into rpm. It'll take a little work to become familiar
with this. The net torque is divided by the I = lw of the weights and the wheel to realize f = ma. And that will give you an idea of how fast a
wheel will rotate at its moment of inertia. Needless to say, it took me some time to realize this.

p.s., As with my builds, I use a lot of parts that are the same dimension. They can be weighed together and then divide the weight by the
number of parts. That'll give you the average each part weighs. For an odd shaped part, you can approximate the center or do a lot of math.
Of course with a scale, place a square block with the scale zeroed out and then place the part on the block. That will be close enough to the
CoG of any odd shaped part. And they need to be oriented the same way or else you'll be finding the CoG of a part that is shaped differently.

[mryy]

Hi mryy

We are not worthy to be in the same forum as a person with your artifice.

Your dedication and creativity is a measure to all that come after you.

Too generous there. It's still a collective endeavor to uncover the secret. No way could I go about this alone. Input from you and others is helpful in one form or another. Heck B. himself admitted he got help from the man in the sky. B. knew how to weep and wail his (peasant) butt to bed every night to receive the pity present from above. We just dunno the correct way to emote for divine intervention -- the B. way that is. That's another secret in itself ...

I will re-post the most recent version of the concept from time to time for viewers who want a quick look at it without having to scroll back in the thread.


Be my fanboy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba-114qLsvM
4:30-4:34 !

[agor95]

It's still a collective endeavor to uncover the secret. No way could I go about this alone. Input from you and others is helpful in one form or another.

When I read contributions here it fills me with humility.
How too turn the concept into reality.

The statement 'The more we learn the less we know.'

So a person can imaging a device without knowledge and can believe it has a good chance.

A sophisticated device needs a level of modelling or building beyond most.

[UbWe]

besslerw72.jpgBased on my interpretation of MT17 I gave the blade spring a tapered design. See image legend on left.

I know you love it, don't you? Don't you?

Newton's 1st law of motion states;
An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.
https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-gui ... of-motion/

What changes the motion of the weights that is not a part of the wheel? Any design is inherently balanced unless an external force acts on it. That
is what Newton's 1st law of motion states. That is why an external force is an unbalanced force. This is why scientists say that perpetual motion is
impossible. An external force adds energy into a "perpetual wheel". They got that wrong because they forgot basic physics.
It's like if I drop a 1kg weight from a height of 0.981m. When it hits the floor the floor resists with a force equal to 1kg * 0.981m/s. The floor has
force without moving. What this means is that when something not a part of the wheel;

Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (low or narrow cylinder) which resembles a grindstone. This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine. Accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) for raising weights which is covered with stretched linen.
https://besslerwheel.com/writings/das_triumphans.html

Bessler made it clear that his invention allowed for Newton's 1st law of motion, it actually proves Newton's 1st law of motion. Hopefully you'll
understand this is more about people who lived 300 years ago than it is about us today. I'm not sure about this but you might find the lyre of
Orpheus interesting.
https://www.greekmythology.com/Myths/Mo ... pheus.html

When Bessler was asked if he was Orpheus he said he wasn't. This makes him Hermes who found the tortoise shell. And with Bessler, he used the Freemason symbol and quoted the Bible. Hermes was a messenger of God and that is how Bessler portrayed himself, as a messenger of God.
This is as much a part of Bessler's Wheel as the wheel itself is about a wheel.
With Bessler, he might've viewed his work as being a messenger of God as important as the wheel itself.
Matthew 19:26 NIV
Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

His work was a reflection of his faith in God.

[UbWe]

And then there is;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpR2v98qZGE

[Sam Peppiatt]

Doesn't any one realize that the principle piece of Bessler's wheel that he describes; rotating disc / low or narrow cylinder / grindstone, surely has to be the so caller "Ring & Rollers", that I've been preaching about for 6 months now?

Again, doesn't any one see the importance of it? No, I guess not--------------------Sam

[Robinhood46]

Sam, those who go to church, go to listen to people preaching.
We are not hear to blindly believe what others think to be the answer to any aspect of this quest.
I think what you are saying about Bessler's mention of the "grindstone" and all the other references to it are very important, this doesn't mean that i must believe that you have found what Bessler refers to as the grindstone.
Keep up the good work Sam, best of luck.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Robinhood46,
Forget it! I never learn. I never fuvking learn, dear god in heaven, what the "F" is wrong with me--------------------Sam

[johannesbender]

Thinking about simplistic ways to imagine the problem. ,i think the simplest example in physics that anyone might be familiar with , that demonstrates the issue , is a bouncing ball , anyone can experiment and experience the problem first hand , no need to build anything fancy just pick up a ball and bounce it.

Although its not rotational , its the same problem.

Second simplest could be the pendulum , and third i think is a ball down and up a curved track.

All of them display the energy problem in very basic manners , however i was trying to avoid torque and anything around a pivot so i dont want to actually include the pendulum and levers , to me this is not a pivot or rotation specific problem , its a energy problem so a bouncing ball as an example works well except the complications from collisions , perhaps a ball on a track is the simplest example ?

For instance , if a ball is placed on a track wich curves upwards one side and remains horizontal on the other , it is easy to demonstrate the if the ball were released from a height on the vertical slope of the track , that the ball could travel quite far along the horizontal part for the amount of height it was released on.

However , the problem becomes clear when the ball has to return to its starting height , and in there lies the devil.

I am kind of curious , what others think serves as a simple example , of what the problem is according to them , or how a certain hypothesis/theory adresses it.

[agor95]

Thinking about simplistic ways to imagine the problem. ...
I am kind of curious , what others think serves as a simple example , of what the problem is according to them , or how a certain hypothesis/theory addresses it.

There are few members posts I am not reading. So a question needs to be self contain.

Therefore 'imagine the problem' - Yes I have losts of problems - eeck!
Also 'What the problem is according to them'.

Could you supply a context to your post? - I suppose that is the problem according to me.

After that is done we can move on. Also when I ask direct questions. Naturally I should answer other direct questions.

[Sam Peppiatt]

johannesbender,

WHY, why, can't you understand? The ring & Rolls eliminate the very problem that you described. They lift the weights all the way up, so that they can fall again and again. I know I'm wasting my breath--------------Sam

[UbWe]

Doesn't any one realize that the principle piece of Bessler's wheel that he describes; rotating disc / low or narrow cylinder / grindstone, surely has to be the so caller "Ring & Rollers", that I've been preaching about for 6 months now?

Again, doesn't any one see the importance of it? No, I guess not--------------------Sam

This is what I designed 5 months ago and started building. Then I realized a 4 to 1 ratio would decrease the torque
on that side of the wheel. Bessler did say he used a 4 to 1 ratio. And his quote allows for that.
Das Triumphirende Perpetuum Mobile Orffyreanum
Johann Bessler, Kassel, 1719, pp. 16-23
Provided by Al Bacon
Translation by Ted of Chicago

Except for a small change in the external dimensions of the wheel for raising weights (or so-called "running wheel"), I have organized
everything together in accordance with those structures of the previous machine which I had broken to pieces. These small changes
occurred by chance and do not need to be defended.

Of course with what you say, I think everyone keeps everything inside of the wheel while Bessler said in his Das Triumphirende Perpetuum Mobile Orffyreanum (The Triumphant Perpetual Wheel)
Accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) for raising weights which is covered with stretched linen.

I think what I'm working on now is within the last 2 months. And I have to take a break from building because I accidentally routed off the skin on
one finger. Still, I have plexiglass that I've been saving for its own design and I have one now. Won't it be funny that I'll be able to build 3 different
designs and only deserve Jubat and his friends. I mean I have to prove what they want when it has nothing to do with Bessler or perpetual motion.
A working wheel will show that they are nothing more than trolls trying to disrupt the forum which they've been allowed to do. And as ab hammer told
me, only he can make me credible. As it turns out his words were prophetic and he is a Christian so he is a true prophet. It is what he told me he
wanted to be recognized as.

[johannesbender]

There are few members posts I am not reading. So a question needs to be self contain.

I don't care who you ignore or don't ignore , this is not primary school , if you want to discuss something personal ,don't discuss it with me.

Therefore 'imagine the problem' - Yes I have losts of problems - eeck!
Also 'What the problem is according to them'.

you understand english right, don't act stupid or do you choose to read and quote only a few words out of context of a whole post.

Could you supply a context to your post? I suppose that is the problem according to me.

My post has context , its called physics.

After that is done we can move on. Also when I ask direct questions. Naturally I should answer other direct questions.

Act like a grownup , drop the comment-policing remarks about how i write my posts ,
PS. no need to reply you are ignored.