Secret wheel design

[preoccupied]

I would like to explain my new wheel design but I think that my Bessler Wheel design would throw Earth off its orbit if it's used by a lot of people. I think that Gravity is powered by the Earth's heat and that if I change the balance of heat used to produce gravity by using gravity for physical work excessively that it will change Earths rotation around the sun. This might throw us in a direction that would not be beneficial to life on Earth, or by changing our orbit enough this way we might draw the attention of space aliens and be invaded by extra terrestrial creatures. I would like to explain why I think Earth uses heat to produce its gravity but I feel like it's a sensitive idea too. Would anybody like to share their motion only wheel designs here now? Because if perpetual motion could be obtained with motion, then perhaps it wouldn't pull from gravity?

Motion only wheels should be possible because I believe that uneven oscillations pulls the levers and everything they are attached to in the opposite direction. And this might also mean that levers can be manipulated to produce infinite leverage because new perspectives like "motion" or a new lever arrangement even, could bypass limitations of a single perspectives balance. An axle is a perspective and it's by leaving my axle and doing work elsewhere that I have made any good perpetual motion designs at all. Maybe I am saying too much?

[daanopperman]

Hi preoccupied ,

If we want to learn more about the wheel Bessler build , we need to look at what negatives a motion wheel , and a ob wheel would yield .

Bessler's earlier wheel was self starting , if it was a gravity wheel , this means that there had to be weights that was kept away from the centre of mass of the wheel .
If the wheel was reversed against its torque , the weights had to trace a profile on the background . This means that the profile traced by the weights could not be simmetricle on both sides of the wheel ,,whether it is the left/right side or the up/down side .
As in MT 13 , the wheel must recover the weight falling below the rim at the bottom without the need of input energy to do this , If we leave this weight in this position , it means we have to lift the weight at the top even higher to compensate for the bottom weight extending beyond the rim . This will eventually lead to a increase in wheel dia.
If we use this same principal on a 2 way wheel , like his later wheels , then the profile which the weights traced on the right would be the same profile traced by the weights on the reversed flip side , as they are connected to the wheel by mechanism's to hold them in this positions . This will result in a balanced wheel in all facets of rotation , even when started by a gentle push .
This leads me to theorize that the weights must fall from above 12 to not below 6 , so not a simmetricle path in the upper and lower half of the wheel .

A motion wheel on the other hand must have at least 4 weights min. to operate . 2 pairs of 2 . Now we know Newtons law say for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction . We also know that the weights must work in this pairs and be exactly 180 deg out of fase .If this is the case , that means the gain in motion we want from 2 pairs will be depleted by the opposite 2 weights going in exactly the opposite directions , for they must be reset in the same time as the first 2 weight's motion is completed .
Now , if the motion of the weights is 180 apart , there cannot be any gain except the deforming of the wheel , which would happen every 180 deg. and no locomotion .Hence the reason I asked jim mich which way his wheel would start . If we use this motion to place a weight out of balance on a wheel when the rotation is stopped , so it would start auto. , when released , do we have a oob wheel , or a motion wheel .Is the motion of the weights just the mechanism to place the weights in the wheel oob .
If we use the same motion principle in a bi directional wheel , back to back , which of the motions will be superior . In a motion wheel , there is not any permutation's as compare to a oob wheel . so there is only 1 way to do it , motion a 180 deg out of case .
So it seems , to me , that a motion wheel is impossible to construct .
Rest assured , a gravity wheel would be as safe as a aple a day .

Chew on it for a while , and be free to debunk all that is spewed out here .

Daan .

[preoccupied]

daanopperman,

What of in a case where motion is required to balance the wheel, such as maybe the wheel's turn pushes weights with a belt (no gravity involved) and then lets go thereby launching the balls onto the side of the square (bang!). If this happens in the top right position turning clockwise, the weights will rest until they get to the top left position where they would fall back into place, and weights on the left would be further from the axle. So the force of the weights hitting the top right square is needed to overcome the force of the weights on the left being further from the axle. And if this same principle can be done without the weights on the left being further from the axle then it would work 100% of the time. The trick I think is allowing the force to leave the levers that bind it to the axle and let them act independently.

[daanopperman]

Hi preoccupied ,

If I understood your post correctly , where the weight goes from the top right corner , past the angle to the bottom axle , you have the 3rd quadrant torque all in then left bottom cycle .This will 100% for sure through the world out of orbit .

[jim_mich]

A motion wheel on the other hand must have at least 4 weights min. to operate .

Chew on it for a while , and be free to debunk all that is spewed out here .

The minimum configuration for a motion wheel (according to Bessler's writings) is two weights. Bessler writes that as one weight moves outward another moves inward. And as one weight moves inward the other moves outward. Bessler omitted a few details about these motions, so as to keep his secret. Two weights oscillating in and out cause the wheel to experience oscillating OOB conditions. When stopped in a positive OOB condition, it will self-accelerate forward when released. Since gravity is a conservative force, the OOB condition oscillates into a rearward OOB condition, which normally slows down most any PM wheel concept. But Bessler discovered a method whereby the motions of the weights moving as they do, causes a temporary gain of kinetic energy of the weights. Bessler explained this as the weights gaining force from their moving/swinging. This extra (temporary) force is transferred out from the weights and into the wheel by impulse. With his earlier one-way wheels, Bessler tried to hide this aspect by using felt to hide the impact noise. Felt absorbs some of the force, thus causing the wheel's force to be weaker than optimum. The felt also kept the weights from pounding the wheel into splinters. Later, Bessler used hardwood anvil boards attached to springs. Thus the noise produced sounded like a gentle banging.

And since the moving/swinging of the weights in and out didn't gain any energy from gravity, Bessler, with his later wheels, coupled two such mechanisms so as to result in four weights being synchronized together. Two weights moved outward as the other two moved inward, then they swap. But he lost the self-starting OOB feature. Thus his later wheels needed a push start. But since the mechanisms were balanced, they could rotate in reverse. Doing so caused the weights to lose energy whenever they moved/swung. The weights would lose energy until they became stationary within the wheel. When rotated in reverse, the wheel would coast. Adding a second bunch of reversed mechanisms allowed the wheel to function in the reverse direction. Thus Bessler produced two-way wheels.

Bessler described most of this in his writings. As I said, he left out details about the motions of the weights. I could describe these motion in a single sentence. Bessler wrote that he had to be careful, because a single word might reveal his secret. The concept is very simple. Understanding why such a mechanism works to produce unbalanced forces is a little complex at first.

Bessler was happy with people thinking his wheel was a typical OOB gravity wheel, because this helped hide how his wheel really worked.

Since none envision a wheel gaining positive motive force without gravity, most seekers of PM look for a gravity wheel. Thus Bessler's PM principle has remained a secret for more than 300 years.

Science is not your enemy. When science says that gravity is a conservative force and thus cannot produce a PM wheel, then believe in science. They tell the truth. When science says PM wheels are impossible, then do a little research. Bessler made a working PM wheel. Assuming Bessler was not a fraud, then PM is possible. Science claims conservation of energy. But when you look at such claims, they concern thermodynamic principles involving conversion of heat to motion and back again. Such conversions are conservative, with net losses due to friction.

PM is not a thermodynamic process. Heat is not involved. Only motion and its associated kinetic energy. Formulas developed by science show that KE is variable while momentum is conserved. A wheel has two environments. One is inside the wheel rotating with the wheel. The other is stationary outside the wheel. A PM wheel must increase its internal kinetic motion energy and then transfer the increased energy to the whole wheel, thus increasing the energy as viewed from outside the wheel.

But enough of my blathering. Keep your fingers in your ears. Keep telling me, " a motion wheel is impossible to construct ." You don't know that which you don't know.

(Sorry for such a long post. And sorry for interrupting this thread.)

[daanopperman]

Hi jim mich ,

Only by dialog can something be resolved , I thank you for your time and effort to do just this ,

I asked some questions in my post. One was , which of the moving weights force would be the dominant force to drive the wheel , the weight that moves outwards ,or the weight moving inwards .

One question at a time , and one answer at a time ,

I do not want to know your principle , nor to suck anything from you , Just stating which force would be dominant would not infringe on your intellectual property . This post is not about devulging any secret movement ,

Should you wish to answer any question in private , I will send you a mail stating all of your mail is your sole property , so that you may sue me if ever I let out your working principle .

More questions to follow if we agree on what was said .

Daan Opperman .

[preoccupied]

daanopperman,

I think the answer to your question is the weight moving inward pulls the wheel in the opposite direction by pulling on the wheel in the opposite direction. I mean I think someone would normally think that a weight in motion would push something in the direction its going but I think that is only true if it stops. While it's moving I think that an oscillation will thrust what's pushing it in the opposite direction, like as if you were to push against a wall but your feet slide against the ground because the wall is very sturdy. Like that but on a smaller scale with weights moving on levers. Do you agree Jim_Mich?

[jim_mich]

Daan, I am confused as to what you are asking...

I asked some questions in my post. One was , which of the moving weights force would be the dominant force to drive the wheel , the weight that moves outwards ,or the weight moving inwards .

One question at a time , and one answer at a time ,

A question back at you... What do you means by "dominate force"? And where do/did you write about weights moving inward or outward?


A wheel needs a greater forward force than rearward force, else it will not self-rotate. Bessler states (paraphrasing) "One weight moves outward as the other moves inward. Then both weights reverse." Thus both of the two weights are dominant.

[preoccupied]

I disagree Jim_Mich. I think that a wheel needs a greater rearward force than a forward force. The amount greater the rearward force is than the forward force is the amount the mechanism will shift in space in the opposite direction of the rearward force.

[AB Hammer]

I would like to explain my new wheel design but I think that my Bessler Wheel design would throw Earth off its orbit if it's used by a lot of people. I think that Gravity is powered by the Earth's heat and that if I change the balance of heat used to produce gravity by using gravity for physical work excessively that it will change Earths rotation around the sun. This might throw us in a direction that would not be beneficial to life on Earth, or by changing our orbit enough this way we might draw the attention of space aliens and be invaded by extra terrestrial creatures. I would like to explain why I think Earth uses heat to produce its gravity but I feel like it's a sensitive idea too. Would anybody like to share their motion only wheel designs here now? Because if perpetual motion could be obtained with motion, then perhaps it wouldn't pull from gravity?

Motion only wheels should be possible because I believe that uneven oscillations pulls the levers and everything they are attached to in the opposite direction. And this might also mean that levers can be manipulated to produce infinite leverage because new perspectives like "motion" or a new lever arrangement even, could bypass limitations of a single perspectives balance. An axle is a perspective and it's by leaving my axle and doing work elsewhere that I have made any good perpetual motion designs at all. Maybe I am saying too much?

A Bessler wheel would have no effect to the earth. To look at it that way? You would be siding with those who want to get rid of all cars and all moving devices of any type for they all would have negative effect to the earth under that misleading logic.

[daanopperman]

Hi jim_ mich

First , I hope to have good news about your health .

The weights moving in\out was in my question for the day , the one you quoted from .

I asked , which of the weights would have the dominant driving force , the moving out or the one moving in . This is where your imputus comes from is it not , you even quoted the man himself .

Hope to clear up the confusion . 😨

Daan .

[daanopperman]

Hi preoccupied ,

My centiments exactly , except for the wall .

[preoccupied]

I would like to explain my new wheel design but I think that my Bessler Wheel design would throw Earth off its orbit if it's used by a lot of people. I think that Gravity is powered by the Earth's heat and that if I change the balance of heat used to produce gravity by using gravity for physical work excessively that it will change Earths rotation around the sun. This might throw us in a direction that would not be beneficial to life on Earth, or by changing our orbit enough this way we might draw the attention of space aliens and be invaded by extra terrestrial creatures. I would like to explain why I think Earth uses heat to produce its gravity but I feel like it's a sensitive idea too. Would anybody like to share their motion only wheel designs here now? Because if perpetual motion could be obtained with motion, then perhaps it wouldn't pull from gravity?

Motion only wheels should be possible because I believe that uneven oscillations pulls the levers and everything they are attached to in the opposite direction. And this might also mean that levers can be manipulated to produce infinite leverage because new perspectives like "motion" or a new lever arrangement even, could bypass limitations of a single perspectives balance. An axle is a perspective and it's by leaving my axle and doing work elsewhere that I have made any good perpetual motion designs at all. Maybe I am saying too much?

A Bessler wheel would have no effect to the earth. To look at it that way? You would be siding with those who want to get rid of all cars and all moving devices of any type for they all would have negative effect to the earth under that misleading logic.

I believe that Planet Earth is cooling Planet Earth's stored heat to create gravity. So every time something falls more heat is cooled to use more gravity, so you're wrong. I think that using a gravity wheel for work would be like adding weight like asteroids to the planet without adding more heat or mass, so the Earth would change orbit if a lot of people use it. I think that everybody would switch to free energy if they could and that this would cause the Earth to change orbit. The movements on the planets do change the planet some, but a gravity driven wheel should be a much bigger impact because it would be like adding weight to the planet without adding heat or mass.

daanoperman,

Jim_Mich had said that the weights are all dominant because they equally impact the wheel with their force, but that to make a running motion wheel you need more force in the forward direction. When I described my wall analogy, it was the whole point of what I was talking about, so I'll explain more so you can know. I'm talking about an uneven oscillation. If a weight changes to the opposite direction with more force, the amount of force greater than the previous direction shifts the entire* mechanism. I'm talking about forces that don't go to the axle but act independently. I've been talking about this before in relation to flying cars.

[Andyb]

Preoccupied ,hi i agree with you the lift side needs to create more force, i believe it does that by using gravity and cf together the faster it moves the more force ,others have said that this will create a constantly accelerating wheel ,not sure what to think about that as a approach,bessler did say he made a wheel that flew to pieces may be that was the principle used to the maximum potential not sure ,but i agree the lift has to be greater i do not agree with the 180''rotation i believe it is 120'' starting at 2.30 resetting at 6 then finishing for 7.30 imho all the best Andyb

[preoccupied]

Andyb you sound drunk.