A foolproof way to keep a wheel continuously turning???

[raj]

Hi everybody!

I have found a way to easily lift weights nearer to the axle on the ascending side of a wheel, thereby maintaining same side overbalanced and turning continuously.

See drawing below.

Raj

[AB Hammer]

raj

Only the build can be the proof. To many people, for hundreds of years have worked on making a continuously repeating wheel/device. I have several wheel designs that look possibly foolproof but, to many foolproof designs show us that our thoughts are the fool of the moment and the build didn't run so no proof. It would be time to build to find your proof if it is there to be found.

[raj]

Hi you good forum members!

The title of this thread has three ??? at the end of it.
You can give it any interpretation you like.

For me, it does not denote an emphatic statement.
On the contrary, it's a querry, asking all of you the following question:
Based on the drawings and explanations that I have so willingly posted freely on this forum, am I right in assuming that I have found whatever I am claiming to have found.

I would appreciate any comment on my questionable claim of a foolproof way to keep a wheem continuously turning, BASED ENTIRELY on my presentation of my idea as shown in my deasription and drawings.

Do my description and drawings show anything to that effect?
Yes OR No?
These are the comments I am expecting.

Raj

[Zogg420]

Hi Raj,

If I understand your design, the large weight is rolling inside the drum? If this is the case have you considered that it will not roll at exactly the 6 position. it will move slightly towards the 7 position. This movement will create counter torque.

sorry if i misunderstood the drawing.


cheers

[jim_mich]

Based on the drawings and explanations that I have so willingly posted freely on this forum, am I right in assuming that I have found whatever I am claiming to have found.

No.

Do my description and drawings show anything to that effect?
Yes OR No?

No!

First off, your drawing is not very clear. It is hard to read your hand writing. A typed explanation would make is much easier to read.

Second, as far as I can tell, you have some mechanism for lifting the weights upward at 6 o'clock. And I must assume this mechanism gains its lifting force from the rotation of the wheel. In all cases, regardless of the mechanical method used, the force needed to lift the weights depends upon how fast you need the weight lifted. There are two components to the lift. The first component is simply enough force to counter-act gravity. The second component is additional force need to accelerate the weight upward. If the weight is to be accelerated quickly before the wheel has rotated away from the 6 o'clock position, then this force must be much greater. This second force causes the weight to move upward, but once the weight reaches its more upward position at 6 o'clock, the weight must decelerate and stop at that position. This is where energy is often lost. The ideal perfect situation would be to almost instantly accelerate the weight upwards at a speed whereby the weight reaches it apex at the upper position at 6 o'clock. Such force always equals the force that develops due to the OOB falling weight. The lifting upward of the weight does not come freely. Then there is always friction involved in any mechanical assembly.

The bottom line is any scheme that tries to use gravity as its energy source is doomed to fail. Your scheme attempts to gain more energy from falling weights and then use less energy to lift them back upward. This is a fallacy. The energy needed to lift the weights at 6 o'clock will exactly match the energy derived from the falling weights. Friction and latency of motion will hinder things and cause the scheme to fail.

I'm not against Bessler wheels. I strongly believe that Bessler wheels worked. But there is absolutely no way that gravity powered them, except as an initial start-up force. Bessler said that the weights within his wheels gained force from their motions. Bessler's wheels were powered by motion and not by OOB gravity.

I really feel that everyone has a right to their own opinion. I'm not trying to throw water on your fire. But you keep asking for comments.

[raj]

Thank you all.

I am always grateful for comments, be they positive or negative. I look at them objectively and take hints.

I have done some physical concept testing on this design. They look good but conclusive. A built is the ultimate answer.

Meantime the question that is nagging me is this:
With a net torque of 20%(+/-), will the grinding wheel roll less than 10 degrees, past the 6 o'clock position, press over the lever downward which will pull up the weight at 6 o'clock position.

The weights are one kilogram each and the grinding wheel is one hundred (plus) kilograms. If this very heavy grinding wheel rolls because of the 20 % net torque,on the drum wheel, then the grinding wheel giving a force of 100 N to the lever can EASILY lift a one newton weight to a reasonable height, at the 6 o'clock position, depending on the length of the lever.

I rest my case.
You all be the jugde and jury.

Raj

[jim_mich]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say " But there is absolutely no way that gravity powered them, except as an initial start-up force." If it is gravity that causes the initial movement, is it not gravity that enables the wheel to repeat the process?

I hope Zogg does not mind me answering this publicly?

When a wheel is forced to stop rotating, then the inertia of its weights will cause them to move forward around the wheel and thus the wheel will be OOB in the forward direction. When released, it will start rotating due to the stored energy as the weights drop on the forward side of the wheel.

But as that stored energy is used up, the weights must again be again raised upward else the wheel cannot maintain its OOB. The energy needed to raise up of the weights after they fall cannot be taken from the energy of the falling weights, because that energy was used to start the wheel rotating. The energy needed to again raise the weights MUST come from some other source.

Bessler tells us his weights gained force from their motions. He does not say they gained force from gravity.

Bessler tells us that the weights moved in and out. But the only times that he talks of the weights being heavier on one side and light on the other is when discussing Wagner's description of his wheel and in another instance when he ridicules the notion of more weights on one side than on the other side, saying one must learn this through experience.

There is no denying that Bessler's early wheels were self-starting due to being OOB. The problem becomes how is the OOB replenished? Gravity cannot replenish the OOB because gravity is conservative, which has been discussed many times.

[raj]

Hello again!

Here is another crunch question:

Assuming that my gravity wheel will keel (balance).
No matter what positions of the weights and drum wheel the balance/keel is achieved, the heavy one hundred kilograms grinding wheel will come to rest at the 6 o'clock position, pressing fully on the lever arm with a force of 100kg/N.

On a simple leverage system, will not this 100N force lift a load(weight) of one Kg (1N) and reset the positions of all the weights?

This is where my idea is stuck at the moment.

Very Humbly!

Raj

[raj]

By the way, resetting the positions of the weights would reinforce the 20%(+/-) net torque by the weights by their position in the drum wheel, viz reinforcing imbalance.

(Only if we ignore what Bessler has said or done. Can we or can't we ignore?)

Raj

[jim_mich]

On a simple leverage system, will not this 100N force lift a load(weight) of one Kg (1N) and reset the positions of all the weights?

Yes, it can reset the weight. But the back-torque against the wheel produced during the reset will match the gain from the falling weight.

These type of set-ups become rather complex, but in all cases the gain balances the energy needed to reset, and friction brings things to a halt. There are formulas for most all situations. Most can be found in Machinery's Handbook and in physics books. Lifting and falling weights always cancel each other out, leaving a zero sum game.

Assuming that Bessler found a workable solution, that solution must include something other than just rising and falling of weights.

[raj]

OK Jim!
Thanks a lot of your insight.

Right now, I am like the boy who saw the publicly acclaimed King, on parade in the best clothes in the world, completely naked.

We have a wheel. We give it P.E by setting weights in/on it in pre-arranged positions. This P.E makes the wheel turn. The wheel loses the P.E through friction or otherwise and comes to to rest/keel. So far, this is all obvious.

But during the same time, the weights return/reset in their pre-arranged positions.

Does it not mean that the wheel has regained the lost P.E we gave it in the first place, which made it turn a cycle?

Assuming that the original P.E we gave, relates only to the weights and their relative positions, should not the returned/regained P.E make the wheel turn another cycle.?

Assuming the P.E is returned/ regained each time because the weights are arranged to reset/return to their relative original positions during each cycle, why should the next cycle stop?

My apology for my child-like questions.

Raj

[raj]

OK Jim!
Thanks a lot of your insight.

Right now, I am like the boy who saw the publicly acclaimed King, on parade in the best clothes in the world, completely naked.

We have a wheel. We give it P.E by setting weights in/on it in pre-arranged positions. This P.E makes the wheel turn. The wheel loses the P.E through friction or otherwise and comes to to rest/keel. So far, this is all obvious.

But during the same time, the weights return/reset in their pre-arranged positions.

Does it not mean that the wheel has regained the lost P.E we gave it in the first place, which made it turn a cycle?

Assuming that the original P.E we gave, relates only to the weights and their relative positions, should not the returned/regained P.E make the wheel turn another cycle.?

Assuming the P.E is returned/ regained each time because the weights are arranged to reset/return to their relative original positions during each cycle, why should the next cycle stop?

My apology for my child-like questions.

Raj

[raj]

This is for Murilo.

I am missing your comment.

Come on! Please say something.
Negative or positive does not matter. I value all advices, especially Jim's and yours.

Raj

[AB Hammer]

raj

Once you get to the point, where each person can only answer from their experiences of the translation of what you provided. There is always something missing in the intent. There are many designs that we can say won't work but once we get past that point. Only a build will give the answer you require.

Alan

[raj]

Distinguish forum member!

One of you has just made me very happy.
He (or it could well be a She) has given me a greenie. So now I have two greenies and I have been upgraded to :Appreciated' category.
Thanks mate, whoever you are.

And just now something clicked about what Jim_Mich has said above:
(I don't know how to use quote function so I am rewriting it)

'' Bessler tells us his weights gained force from their motions. He does not say they gained force from gravity''

The crunch questions here are:
1. What did Bessler meant by '' their motions''?
2. Were the weights in their motions, acting from without or from within the wheel?
3. Most likely from within?
4. What were the weights' motions inside the wheel?
rolling? Swinging? resting? jumping? falling? or what?

I sincerely believe that all gravity wheel designs using weights presented on this forum, including all mine, specially the design on this thread, have the weights in some kind of motions.

Therefore we are all following Bessler's idea unknowingly.

Could it be then the weights in our gravity wheel designs are gaining force from their motions.

Raj[/quote]