New idea

[Jonathan]

This is just a heads up because I think I've had a new and original idea, I will elaborate in a few days if after much thought it still seems like it will work. I will then post under this thread about it. BTW, I know this seems weird, since there really no way for you all to post under this yet. This is just to make sure I don't forget for now, because I use this site every day and even the very act of writing this post will help secure it in my mind.

[Jeff L.]

Jonathan,

Using this forum as your personal reminder seems a little arrogant to me...
A piece of paper would serve your purpose just as well at this point and would not waste everyone else's time reading about a new and original idea you think you have. Good luck with your idea, but it would be better to wait until it solidifies before sharing it with the rest of the world.

Jeff L.

[Jonathan]

No, that didn't come out right, I don't know how to describe what I mean, but I'm not just using this forum as a sticky note. Within two hours I should have the basic idea on here, but the idea is so simple I'm afraid that the reason why it doesn't work is too, and then I'll look like an idiot. I did want to put the idea on last night, it was getting too late though.

[Jonathan]

Here we go, I will explain in the next post:

[Jonathan]

Wow that came out good, this is a great site Scott! [If any of you out there are new here, click the picture, I am aware that the small version is not what one would call 'coming out good'. :)]
Okay, the basic idea is that instead of having one side heavier than another, one makes the top heavier than the bottom, so that the slightest breeze will make it go one way or another. I think the advantage of this idea over others is that it is more conducive to bidirectionality and to get the balls from the output to the input takes almost no energy, as opposed to other designs that attempt to lift a weight the same height that it has fallen with energy left over, which I don't think is possible. (There might be a few novel designs that can, but I have yet to come up with one, and neither has the geniuses of times past.)
This design is nominal, I am really interested in the principal, not this particular design, there are undoubtably many different versions. But in this one the blue parts are stationary and the various shades of brown are the wheel, say it's made of wood. The struts or whatever that hold the blue pieces are not shown. The arrows indicate the direction it was slightly pushed toward get to its shown position. The problem I see with this device is that it seems like it will want to start turning the other way at the point shown. For all I know it might, in which case it may or may not run perpetually, maybe or maybe not in the same direction all the time, ie. maybe it reciprocates perpetually. This is the problem I wanted to solve before posting, but I'm too impatient.
I expect there will be some questions regarding the inconsistencies in the drawing, because sometimes I show a part and sometimes I don't. I have done this because I felt it was easier to draw if some of the parts became invisible, but they are still there in theory. You might notice that I show the blue triangles first with one incline and then with an incline perpendicular to that, I do this to try to indicate that the incline is in fact between the two, at an angle, and that is the way it would look if you shut one eye so as to not have depth perception.
White circles or light brown rectangles represent holes that the balls can occupy, the light brown are shown as they are because I wanted to indicate where the holes would be regardless of the fact that from those positions it is not possible to see the holes. Kinda like a virtual cross-section. The black and gray things are, as I bet you all guessed, the axle and the balls respectively.

[Patrick]

Hi Jonathan;
This looks like a very interesting idea and the visual looks great. Maybe you might be interested to see the ideas put forth by Jan Rutkowski to compare his concepts.
best regards--Patrick
http://astrosa.8k.com/jan/main2.htm

[Neo]

Hi Jonathan,

I'm sorry to say your design will balance out as soon as one weight exits the wheel and the next tries to enter the wheel, then it will stop.


Best Regards

[Jonathan]

Yes, I've seen Jan Rutkowski's idea, it has fueled many hours of thought, and probably many more to come.
Neo, though I have come to the conclusion that it will reciprocate and stop, do you mind sharing your reasoning?
In addition, please keep in mind that it is not really this version of the wheel, which I doubt would work, that I'm interested in, as much as the principal. Does anyone have any ideas (attachments/pictures or descriptions) for the successful use of the principal?

[Jonathan]

I was hoping for some more responses, are you all just not interest, ie it's not nearly as interesting an effect as I think? I'd really like to see someone else's idea of how this 'teetering principle' could be used.

[Jeff L.]

Jonathan,

In order to complete a cycle, each ball must return to exactly the same point, to be placed again on the wheel. Once on the wheel, it contributes to the wheel's rotation on the descending side but acts against rotation as the wheel works to lift it to the same height on the return side, on its way back to the starting point. When first started, the holes in the wheel are not all filled and rotation starts, but when all the holes are filled (except for the one on the top) there is no imbalance and the wheel is guaranteed to stop due to friction (air resistance, friction between adjacent balls on the tray, bearing friction, plus some mechanism to transfer weights between wheel and tray, etc).
Don't give up- someone somewhere WILL bring gravity power to the world again.

Jeff L.

[Jonathan]

Thanks for your input, but I don't think you understood, there is a point where three balls are in the wheel, but the two on either side are kinda in and kinda out.
I am aware that there are many instances where the wheel is balanced, but has a slight momentum one way or another, and it will go that way and immediately become imbalanced, that's why I think this principle is something special. The mechanism to get the balls onto the tray is shown: it is those triangles, which act as inclined planes so that as the wheel turns, the ball (which sticks out on both sides) hits it and is pushed out of it's hole and on to the tray, which pushes another ball into another hole, and it hits it's corresponding inclined plane, giving the wheel almost the same amount of energy it took to get rid of the first ball, so there are almost no losses in the trasfer of a ball from one side to the another. The whole problem, which is why it either reciprocates perpetually or just doesn't work, is that in the position shown it has a rightward momentum but has a leftward acceleration (gravity), leading to either the first reciprocation, and/or possibly the first step toward stopping.

[Patrick]

Hi Jonathan,
Now you see why hands-on experimentation is so important! It is not difficult for someone to come up with a variety of compelling ideas which according to all one's calculations simply 'must' work. But once it is built the inventor quickly sees the true result.
The idea/principle you are presenting is not new. Look at MT48 & MT49 or even MT6, 7, & 8. You may have reasons why yours is unique and different but they are all variations on a theme which should be quickly tested and then either dismissed or expanded.
It is not hard to find armchair inventors that 'toy' with an idea for many years without ever building it; being so much more content to cherish the 'possibility' than to build it and thus crush their fragile hope. This type of attitude would drive me crazy! I am not saying that you are following this route since I know you have done hands-on work yourself. But the best way to get your answers for this current idea is to get the marbles out and build! For every verbal explanation given to you, why this idea will not work, your mind will be able to come up with it's own refutation to preserve the concept as a possible/workable solution.
--Patrick

[Jonathan]

I agree and plan to do some fiddling as soon as I get time, but until then I'm going to mull over ideas I've had about Jan Rutkowski's device. I have seen most of the MT drawings, but I can't make head nor tails of them, so I will look at the ones you said and see if there is something for me to learn.

[Jonathan]

I don't see how those devices are similar to my idea except for a horizontal and stantionary tray. MT6, 7, and 8 still use the idea of having some weights closer to the center, but I can see in all the pictures why it will not work: because though they are nearer the center, all the sections have converged, thereby causeing there to be more balls on the side where balls are closer. We are all aware that this is the usual gravity wheel down fall, one mine doesn't suffer from, though it too obviously has it's problems. In MT48 and 49, there are more falling and they are farther out, but almost all of them are not putting their full weight tangentially, and I don't hesitate to guess that this is in fact balanced too, esp. since Bessler wouldn't have just shown the answer in the open like that.
As far as I can tell, these wheel's only similarity to mine is a the previously mentioned tray. Besides that, they are supposed to work on an entirely different principle. I do want to stress that I doubt I have been the first (of course I hope so, or else I'm wasting my time reexploring known stuff) to think of this as yet unworkable principle, but I never see examples of it (which is where that hope comes from). I think it to be futile to continue in the 'farther out on one side' attempts and think a whole new approach is needed, and this is my first resonable attempt at that.

[Guest]

Mr. Jonathan !
You are correct whit your's idea. I'm using this idea to my presentation of perpetuual motion for past 4 yares . The wheel is turning 10 times a minute acording to the readers but stop under eny load .
On your drawing balls are on colecting bar that is stationery , but my is swinging to left and to right like a see-saw . I caled a counterballance it look like half circle stright line -diameter is a collecting bar. The rest is this same as yours . One ball is on the wheel at 2 oclock and is of the wheel 9 oclock,
At this same time balls are lifted up just by swinging . The best resolts are when counterballance ( half circle ) is swinging in oposite direction to rotation of the wheel.
Look at my polish version at the web side http://www.astrosa.8k.com
same ideas developed from readers. Let me know what you think about my animation .
Best regards Jan Rutkowski .