Design Status Update

[MrVibrating]

@Tarsier - yes that's what his argument seems to imply.

@Fcdriver - dampers absorb KE, removing it from the system. They're 'inelastic collisions', not motors.

[Fcdriver]

Then you have them hooked up backwards, or don't understand how they work

[Silvertiger]

Sooo.. could we extrapolate your argument to exclude all inertial forces?

Of course not. :)

All of its input energy comes from the rotation...

It comes from gravity. It won't work in a zero-g environment.

...despite the fact that the dampers obviously dissipate much of that energy away.

It doesn't matter since each placebo activation reboots the GE into a new kinetics cycle. All former rotation cycles' energy losses are moot. (Roulette, remember?)

The tampers create energy, they only dissipate energy if you hook them up backwards

I'm beyond speechless here...

Then you have them hooked up backwards, or don't understand how they work

I think that's enough. Driver, I have absolutely no idea how to say this without sounding totally harsh, but everything you have said on here thus far has been completely wrong and/or off-topic, and even comes off as foolish. "One lifts four" came from out of the blue, and you kept at it. CF has nothing to do with powering the engine, but you kept at it. Now it's..."tampers"? You are trying to discuss things of which you seem to have zero knowledge and/or understanding. I doubt you will accept this from me, since it would appear that your cup is already quite full, and you seem to be oblivious to previous hints to help you get your light bulb turned on, but I will try nonetheless. Motion dampers (not tampers) do NOT create energy. I will just give you the simplest example of one: air shocks. This is why when you drive, your vehicle does not bounce every time you hit a bump in the road. (This is why I wanted you to start your own thread, which was one of the hints, by the way.) If anyone disagrees with what I've said here, PLEASE let me know.

[Fcdriver]

Mine works yours doesn't, open up your mind, quit trying to disprove the machine, try looking to prove how it works

[justsomeone]

No Fcdriver, you do not have a working wheel!

[Silvertiger]

He seems to keep coming up with random things, having a completely different conversation than what has taken place...is he autistic, albeit higher on the spectrum of functionality?

[Fcdriver]

Too funny,

[Fcdriver]

Try attaching your sprag clutch from the stompers to the pendulum

[Fcdriver]

The pendulums absorb the impact, and give you back pressure to turn the wheel

[Silvertiger]

I'm done here. Driver, you can have this thread...it's all yours. Enjoy.

[MrVibrating]

Of course not. :)

It's not a guessing game and i don't want to try and probe more than you're ready to reveal, so feel free to not answer anything further, but i'm now trying to think of how to exploit inertia that ISN'T a 'child' force in the same way as CF... with the help of oscillation and damping. Hmmm...

It comes from gravity. It won't work in a zero-g environment.

Yes of course - i've been thinking lately in terms of how to use rotation to subsidise a lift, hence the brain fart there. But you're obviously not doing that, using this "oscillation of something important" instead, and hence the rotation is almost incidental to your causative principle... but either way it's gravitational energy providing the input power for any working mechanism.

It doesn't matter since each placebo activation reboots the GE into a new kinetics cycle. All former rotation cycles' energy losses are moot. (Roulette, remember?)

Oh that makes sense alright, still i maintain it's all the more impressive that your exploit provides enough energy to both raise the weight while nevertheless wasting a load of energy to heat. So while it's great that it can afford to do so, if that wasted energy could also be recuperated your output efficiency would be all the greater. And even if it wasn't worth the bother, it should still be factored into the energy accounting.

The tampers create energy, they only dissipate energy if you hook them up backwards

I'm beyond speechless here...

LOL he's gotta be trolling, just ignore him.

I remain really excited about whatever you're doing here; it sounds like it bears all the hallmarks of success, it smells like it.. i just wish i could see it.

[Fcdriver]

Can a weight pushing down cause lift? You tell me.. www.hitchcorner.com/equalize load equalizing hitch,r_weight_distribution.htm

[Silvertiger]

Ok, so while I'm on temporary monetary/time-deficiency-related hiatus from my main design above, I used some of that time and simulated a unique lever design yesterday. Using a special but simple lever modification, in the simulation, one pound raises one pound without the trade-offs of height and width:

https://youtu.be/EmfXMo6zOc4

I hid the lever so you can only see the weights; there are no hidden external or internal net forces, torques, charges, etc. acting on the system.

[daxwc]

If that is true should be easy to make a running wheel from there?

[Silvertiger]

Well it's just me working backwards, reverse engineering Bessler's clues just to see if I can figure it out. I just start with a blank page and draw the components based on each item of note I see. So far, I just have the special lever. But as it stands right now, my main design above, at least in simulation, outperforms Bessler's wheel. The engineering on it is nearly impossible...an extremely tough nut to crack, so it's a slow process. If I build it, it just might be a dud, but if it works, I can retire happy I suppose.