Returning back to an old disputed concept

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Post Reply

On these three ways, which one is the good one?

You may select 1 option

 
 
View results

User avatar
path_finder
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
Location: Paris (France)

Returning back to an old disputed concept

Post by path_finder »

On these three ways, which one is the good one?

Since a long time I have been concerned by the baskhara wheel.
Not by the design itself, it does NOT work obviously in that state.
But deeply surprised to see how a not working concept has been transmitted across thousand of humans generations despite it's futility.
We can understand this kind of process for the Bible per example, because the content has a deep religious and social impact.
But for the baskhara wheel?

At this level of reflexion I have asked myself many times if by chance this baskhara wheel has been in the past a part of a real working wheel.
The first reason could be a loss of information, some parts being missed within the time or during the transmission generation after generation.
If we look at the drawing of Villard de Honnecourt, it's obvious this guy was a poor painter, not able to restitute the exact details of what he saw.

Here is the reason of my poll, not completely stupid if you consider the following points:
- We know one possible way is to transfer the potential energy into some kinetic energy
- we know how to transfer the kinetic energy into kinetic energy (like the Newton cradle per example)
- 100% of the drawings of a baskhara wheel are based on the first design below, where the axle (A) and final contact point (B) are on the same side of the center (C) of the wheel.

But now what happens if the axle and impact point are located like in the second and third drawing below?
Do we have any chance the impact can be this time correctly applied?
Attachments
baskhara3.png
baskhara2.png
baskhara1.png
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
User avatar
Tarsier79
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5002
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:17 am
Location: Qld, Australia

re: Returning back to an old disputed concept

Post by Tarsier79 »

All these methods give the same result, and are neither better or worse than any other. They all achieve a perfect balance. The main problem is the horizontal lever being lifted on the upwards going side of the wheel.
User avatar
path_finder
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
Location: Paris (France)

re: Returning back to an old disputed concept

Post by path_finder »

Dear Tarsier79,
One time again, forget the static point of view (obviously balanced)
Think motion and impact.
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
FunWithGravity2
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:32 pm

re: Returning back to an old disputed concept

Post by FunWithGravity2 »

In all three designs you have wasted "motion" and a worthless "impact" and yes i fully understand what both designs are intended to do and how one would "hope" they would act. They are both extremely important to learning the principle behind the motion of the wheel IMHO. anyone who has not built this design should absolutely build it and stusy the motion until they figure out ALL the reasons why it won't work. I believe the simplicity of this designs will reveal more in its failure than any of the hamster designs.

Meant with all due respect to a wonderful builder.

Dave
Si mobile in circumferentia circuli feratur ea celeritate, quam acquirit cadendo ex
altitudine, quae sit quartae parti diameter aequalis ; habebit vim centrifugam suae
gravitati aequalem.
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

Post by Grimer »

I like your line of thought, pf, i.e. the idea that a visual myth might be based on a physical reality.

It seems to me that there is some family resemblance between 2 and 3 to the Keenie wheel which I believed worked.

On balance I would instinctively therefore go for 3 but I can't explain why.

Definitely not 1.
User avatar
nneba
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:47 am

re: Returning back to an old disputed concept

Post by nneba »

I choose #1

I feel that this design is very promissing

nneba
User avatar
path_finder
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
Location: Paris (France)

re: Returning back to an old disputed concept

Post by path_finder »

Here is why I voted YES for the way number #3.
On this animation the four weights are moving in four different but parallel planes (this is one of the reason why WM2D cannot represent this design).
Therefore don't take in account the superpositions of rods: there are NO collision at all.
Note the famous ratio of 4:1 between the two parts of the arms.
Between 12:00 and 3:00 the weight is free and get its kinetic energy, which is restituted to the main wheel at 3:00 (despite the wheel has rotated only a little).
Due to the ratio 2:1 between the axle distance and the tail length the momentum is more efficient and the main wheel receive a big amount of energy in the clockwise direction, compensating the potential energy needed for lift-up the two returned arms.
I apologize for the small size of this animation (with the Firefox Web browser, just keyin on 'plus' eight times).
I'm in way to build it, in view to confirm the concept.
Attachments
baskhara_3b.gif
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
User avatar
path_finder
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
Location: Paris (France)

re: Returning back to an old disputed concept

Post by path_finder »

Just some complementary remarks:
1. There is nothing linked to the inner rim of the wheel.
We can leave the circular ring around the mechanism and the envelop of the wheel, with no other purpose than to hidden its content.
2. This design is so simple than the son of the carpenter can make a copy very easily.
Another consequence is the easy way for a simple witness to make a replicate.
3. The noise here is heart FOUR times at each turn. But what about a derived design where TWO sets are mutually centered and linked, where one set is rotating twice quicker than the other?
4. Based on an very ancient and old concept ('the baskhara wheel') it would be very difficult to prove any innovation, therefore to get any patent.
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

path_finder wrote:4. Based on an very ancient and old concept ('the baskhara wheel') it would be very difficult to prove any innovation, therefore to get any patent.
Any wheel that actually works is patentable! If it works then it's an improvement over all wheels that do not work.


Image
FunWithGravity2
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:32 pm

re: Returning back to an old disputed concept

Post by FunWithGravity2 »

I can't wait to see the result,

But, i'll break it down for you as i was once doing many such builds and hopefully someone else can learn from my mistakes, although i am sure you will share your results with us.

1. The weight falling presents several problems.

a. the impact of the weight(supposedly at 3 o'clock) will not create an efficient tansfer of energy, in fact it will create a very inefficient one at that, most likely it will bounce repeatedly and violently and not tranfser any significant force.

b. the weight falling is a problem, the lever you propose is about 1/3 the diameter of the wheel. the maths for how to figure out the fall seem fairly easy to figure the times(until your rotating) but thats not the problem. As soon as you weight comes of its rest position at 12 oclock it is in freefall until it hits the pin at 3. During this freefall the OOB is in the CCW direction in a severe way. Most likely your weight will impact the pin at 1:30 as the wheel spins violently in the CCW direction.

2. The weight hanging creates a problem,

a, in the event you were magicaly able to overcome the above 2 which are far more detrimental you have the problem of the hanging weight during its transition period at the bottom of the wheel. The weight(pendulum at this point) is hanging from its pivot and needs to transition back through the 90 degrees of rotation that it should have fallen. During this time it is hanging from its pivot and providing much less leverage on the right side of the wheel as opposed to the weights resting on pins on the left side.


We need to extend time and increase force on the downward side while shortening time and lessening force on the ascent. Your wheel idea(which is almost every idea for the past 300 years) does exactly the opposite. I know it was a thought experiment but i hope that from building this you are able to understand the things i have said above. There can be no fall and no impact(inelastic) in a wheel that works. I don't care what the anvil recieves many blows bologna puts in your head.

IMHO
A patent for a PM machine will be like the US flag in the moon, great bragging rigths but it will soon be forgotten if we sit on our lazy buts and let the world pass us by. What we do with the device and how quickly we do it will be what makes it/us a success or a solar panel.




Dave
Si mobile in circumferentia circuli feratur ea celeritate, quam acquirit cadendo ex
altitudine, quae sit quartae parti diameter aequalis ; habebit vim centrifugam suae
gravitati aequalem.
User avatar
Tarsier79
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5002
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:17 am
Location: Qld, Australia

re: Returning back to an old disputed concept

Post by Tarsier79 »

Well put Dave

Although I personally don't necessarily agree with your "no impact" theory. Impact can be used positively, and so can the weightlessness of the falling weight.
User avatar
path_finder
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
Location: Paris (France)

re: Returning back to an old disputed concept

Post by path_finder »

Dear FunWithGravity2 and Tarsier79,
Many thanks for sharing your experiments.
You wrote: it will bounce repeatedly and violently...
...The weight hanging creates a problem,
This can explain the presence of the springs (in violet on the next drawing), with a triple advantage:
- an anticipation in the flip of the W' weight (instead in W position), allowing the impact while the wheel is just reaching 12:00 (an not 1:30 as before)
- a reduction of the countertorque from the ascending side.
- an excursion of the weight in the outside direction (instead to be a simple pendulum), by the way increasing the unbalance on the falling side of the wheel.
You wrote:the lever you propose is about 1/3 the diameter of the wheel.
As explained the C red circle around the mechanism is purely artificial and don't represent the active diameter of the wheel.
In fact the main circle of the wheel B (in blue) is the location of the pins, where the energy is transmitted.
Note that with this point of view, the weights are outside of the main wheel
The inner circle A (in green) is the location of the pinions (rotating axles) of the arms.
Just for information I give also the measurement of the different parts.
The active lever has a ratio of 60/15 equal to 4:1 and the length of the arm has nothing to do with the diameter of the C ornamental circle in red.

I have no idea if this can work, as long I build an example of this design.
In all cases any comment is welcome.
Attachments
baskhara_theory1.png
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
User avatar
path_finder
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
Location: Paris (France)

re: Returning back to an old disputed concept

Post by path_finder »

A shot of the first tests on the 'impact baskhara' wheel.
The locking on the tail side has been abandoned because the to much violent impact.
Instead the locking of the falling weight is made with the green fishing wires.
The frame structure has been made light as soon as possible.
Next step: implementation of the springs.
There is still room enough for another set, but John Collins will be happy: it seems that a device with FIVE arms/weights could be more efficient...
Attachments
4xW_baskhara_impact1.jpg
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
Ealadha
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:45 pm

re: Returning back to an old disputed concept

Post by Ealadha »

Yes five arms or pendulumns , i have experimented with a pendulumn on a horizontal wheel which showed why there would be an odd number , if the wheel is free the pendulumn won't spin the wheel however if the wheel is prevented from counter rotating , then the pendulumn will spin the wheel when pulled in at ninety degrees to the axis of the wheel .
A vertical wheel needs to be prevented from counter-rotating , so an odd number of pendulumns .
Post Reply