Sevich's Ideas...

[scott]

Here are some drawings sent in by Sevich... Thanks Sevich!

[Jonathan]

Some of those I didn't understand, some I know won't work, but #4 and #5 have peaked my interest. I have a similar idea to #4 cooking, but it's only the vaguest rudiment of an idea, and #5 just looks very interesting, but that too I didn't understand completely.

[Sevich]

Hi Jonathan, I've made a model of No#5 but for reasons of no exerience and other matters resulted me to hastely test that design and then to cannabalize parts for other prototypes. It seems to me that the ball weights rising upwards are more in number than the ones decending. But then again to know for sure is to build another. I'll try to send a more detailed drawing of No#5. As for No#4 once again I made a mess of the test as I only had one pair of gears and put in a few hours of testing (no major result, as at times seemed to overballance but other times ballance) I soon after moved to other models. I'll send a clearer drawing of No#4. Regards......................Sevich

[Jonathan]

Thanks!

[scott]

Here's the latest installment from Sevich. Thanks for sharing, Sevich!
-Scott

[Jonathan]

Wow!
#4-I can tell that this one would take a lot of math to prove one way or another (I prefer math proof because experiments only prove a particular incarntion doesn't work, while you can try all theoretically possible varients with the math. Of course then if one prove that one work in the math, 99% of the time you will build it and it won't. That happened with the Cowlishaw device, I still don't know what was wrong with the maths I did. :) ) Anyway, how do the gears reverse at 10 o'clock-ish?
#5-This is much clearer and I'm very interested. This one might keep me up all night if I can find a reason why it doesn't work pretty fast...
Okay, I've gotten a little while to look at it and I think that if made exactly as shown, it won't work. I think this because of the shown relationship between the number of spirals and the size of the wheel, you will have like eight going up on one side and a few going down. I haven't done any math to prove that it won't work as shown, this is just my impression. However, I think the concept is very good, and I will think some more...

[Sevich]

Hello Jonathan, You ask how do the gears reverse at 10 o'clock?....LOL!!! I have no idea! I'm a little rough around the edges, so I'll leave up to you to smooth things out. At the moment I'm working on a new design that I feel is a five hundred percent improvement compaired to all the others in the past. I'll only test one part of the inner mechanism so as to save time and money. If it works I'll post it, If it does'nt work I'll post it any way,it's a bit complicated and all I can relate it to is this: A man is walking up the elivator and the faster he moves the quicker he falls behind? Elevator is the wheel and he is the weight ! Regards.............................................Sevich

[Jonathan]

Hey, I think I might have something!
Okay excitement aside, I was going along the thoughts above of how maybe with the right relationship between # of spirals and diameter one could get it to work. So I came up with the idea I'm posting here. My original line of thought was that this relationship seems like it would do best with a large diameter and few spirals. So I drew one with two polar spirals(per side) of the form r(theta)=theta, so that the slope dr/d(theta) would always be one, which is optimal for a design like these. And, again there were many on the 'short' part and only on one on the long part. However, it occurred to me that maybe the ones on the short part outweight the one on the long part, so that the device would run the opposite way you'd first think. Unfortunatly, there are two variables in determining if it works, so I have not proved it or not yet. I do know that in the position shown it would indeed move in the direction shown.
Now to explain the drawing:
If it is dotted or gray, it is on the side that you can't see, and therefore can't interact with the stuff that isn't.
If it is solid or black, it is actually visible.
It is assumed, but not shown, that there are simple mechanisms, probably in the form of inclined planes, that shuttle the balls between sides at the appropriate places.

[Sevich]

Hi Jonny boy! Your graph is quite good! So tell me do you think you'll have this design up and running soon? I would love hear of your results!..............tell me ? What do you think is it say: 2-1, Two weights raised while one is falling?.......Not sure but it seems that way! I don't know if this wheel is the best one to work in. Just as I said the best way to find out is to build the darn thing. If you look at it, the weights are being raised very close to the center, so even though two weights are raised while one is desending still might work!........might it not?? Regards.................Sevich

[Jonathan]

5 fall while one rises, but one rises faster than 5 fall. I must stress that it seems to work, but I havn't done the math, I think it would be easier to examine point by point. Or build it. Here I have a lot of attachments showing how one weight moves in 90 degree increments. Caution, the drawings are crude and still contain the lines from the graphing program.
EDIT: Sorry they came out in reverse order, so start at the bottom of the list in the second post and go up.

[Jonathan]

and the rest:

[Sevich]

I see you understand the system! I know you can take it to a new hight. But you must remember one thing, and that is keep it simple. I don't believe that there is only one road to Perpetual Motion. As they say, the Lords ways are many, PMM also?

[Jonathan]

Yes, as Bessler predicted, I have a problem with overcomplexification. I also agree, because there are many different ways one can make a lever do the same thing, but it will look massivly different each time. This fact seems ironic given how long people have spent searching for PM. If there are so many variations, you'd think they would have figured it out on accident by now. Ho hum, I should be off to bed, I plan to look into building a simple model tomorrow, but I will check here first in case Michael has a good reason to believe it won't work. I'd hate to waste my time building it if so.
Edit: I have heard of the Lord having mysterious ways, but I don't remember him having many. I thought he was the way etc.?

[Sevich]

Jonathan, Why don't you have an e-mail address on the board. Love to post you a few other ideas I have, no drama it's up to you!

[Jonathan]

I do have one, it is right there above your post, the "email" button. LOL.