BREAKING NEWS

[Jonathan]

Hey all, I think I have something. I didn't want to share it unless I had a working wheel, but it is looking like it will be a while, so I will just tell you all about this concept, it's simple:
Don't move the mass in or out, move where the mass exerts its weight!
I had this idea and a wheel design for it one Dec 11, and I will post some pictures very soon.
BTW, Jim_mich thinks he's got something too, but I don't really know what.

[Jonathan]

Here we go. The green/gray indicates where the center of the mass is at any time. The red/gray indicates where the mass exerts it's weight at that any time. The gray alone indicates where the red and green are the same, where the mass exerts its weight where it is.
There is one part of the device that is too small to be shown, and that is the rachet. It engages at the bottom and disengages at the top, so that the mass can no longer freely move on it's axle on the right side.
The radius of the center gear is twice the radius of the rotor gears. The little gears inbetween are of arbitrary size and act as idlers, merely changing the direction of rotation.
The center gear is static.

[Jonathan]

Uh oh, I've done some experiments that are saying that the left side doesn't act like a free swinging joint. It seemed to me that it would (since it spins), but it now seems that there is a back-torque on the entire left side, ie the gears act instantaneously like they are as rigid as the rachet would be on the other side.
However, another simpler version has occurred to me that might work, I'll see and post it.

[Patrick]

Hi Jonathan;
This looks like an interesting idea. Nice of you to share it on the board.
--Patrick

[Jonathan]

Thanks Patrick. Unfortunatly, I have hit many obstacles, including the realization that I have no gears that vary by a factor of 2, and am having serious doubts about this working now. I'm trying to do what I can with gears that are {1+sqrt(2)}:1, it's not easy.
I forgot to write before that everything in the second drawing is the same as in the first, except there is no idler gear, and the green curve is supposed to be epicycloidial (I drew it by hand).

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Jonathan,
nice that you had now a closer look to 'Drehmomentspeicher'.

[Jonathan]

I don't know if I understand what you said, but that had better not be a reference to an idea of yours. I looked up 'Drehmomentspeicher' and it apparently means 'torque storage', and because it is capitalized, I think you are refering to an idea of yours.
Well Georg, I've got to tell you that you don't have a good grasp of Newton nor does everything here revovle around you ideas. I came up with this device on my own.

[Jonathan]

I have figured out what you are refering to, and I was right. My device is different, it uses a rachet. Not to mention that I have already posted my findings under LegoCOG.JPG that the 'Drehmomentspeicher' doesn't work, and that in fact it is a perfectly balanced wheel, with out a single moment of unbalance.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Jonathan,
the 'Drehmomentspeicher' has this name, because a perpetuum mobile device is not allowed to be patented in Germany. Should i name it Perpetuum mobile, why it is't ?

This developement is now over 2 years old. Do you think I have my developements stopped since that time ? I think you must dreaming. The 'Drehmomentspeicher' is not in balance as you think it must be, you are definitiv wrong.

But try your own experiments, you will spent a lot of time, and maybe, you are able to solve the problem in 1 year. I helped especially you a lot, but you don't like to hear it, or listen. That's not my problem. You can ignore my views, but as I said, Newtons laws are incomplete. You have to find that lack, I have it already. Or you will not be successful. Talk to you in one year again.

[Stewart]

Hi Jonathan

I'm going to stick up for Georg here as it is quite obvious that your idea is based on his. The basic idea is the same: having two revolving eccentric weights on either end of a lever that pivots at the centre of the main wheel, and applying a turning force to the eccentric weights at certain positions inside the wheel. Georg has shown this on his website and here also.

Well Georg, I've got to tell you that you don't have a good grasp of Newton nor does everything here revovle around you ideas. I came up with this device on my own.

Firstly, having a good grasp of Newton is not necessary to build a working wheel, and so that comment is irrelevant. I've never gotten the impression that Georg thinks everything revolves around his ideas. He is just trying to get us to understand ideas which he feels are important, which is no different to anyone else who has a new idea. Georg has always been very polite and patient with everyone, including yourself despite your often arrogant and rude posts to him. It's you that comes across as being the one that thinks everything revolves around him and that an idea is worthless unless you understand it.

I can't believe you are now claiming you came up with this idea "on my own", when it is so similar to images posted recently by Georg. Just because you think Georg's device doesn't work or that there is a rachet in your design and not in his, doesn't mean the concept isn't the same. The decent thing to do would have been to acknowledge Georg's principle and add your ideas as to how you might improve on it. After all, that is the purpose of this board, and we should be encouraging people to share their ideas to be worked on jointly by members of the board, and not to discourage people from posting their ideas for fear of being ripped off by others.

This is what you posted under the recent post on copyright:

I think this is all unnecessarily complex, I think that perpetual motion is important enough that it doesn't matter who invents it, it is more important that it get done. Of course I hate the idol worship that science practices on it's famous members, but what does it really matter in the long run if the wrong guy gets the credit?

I would agree that it doesn't matter who invents it, as long as someone does. It sounds to me like you're quite prepared to take credit for other peoples ideas - why is this if you really do hate the whole idol worship thing? If I were to share the secrets of a working wheel with this board, I know I would be upset if another member then claimed the idea to be theirs.

Jonathan, I think you have a lot to offer this board by way of ideas, formulas, and testing designs etc, and I wouldn't want you to stop posting, but I think you need to be a bit more sensitive to other members. If you say "I don't understand" one more time, I think I might scream ;)

Stewart

[Nitro]

Stewart

I agree in the feeling Jonathan would be the first to take credit for anothers idea.
That is the very reason I stopped posting.
God forbid if you show an aspect of an idea that may result in its not working.
But hey Ive only messed with such ideas and concepts for 22 years,
What could I possibly know.

[Guest]

To: Nitro and Stewart, I agree with you guys; Jonathan sounds quite hypocritical but probably he is just a young teenager so that would account for his immaturity and need to post constantly. I have decided not to post anything to this board until they have a board where all the members show who they really are, that would allow for a trusted comunity atmosphere among members. I read befor that Scott is working on that.

[Jonathan]

I am very insulted, but you have one good point.
Steward, how similar the ideas look has no bearing on their originality or possible usefulness. If I made a time machine that looked like an ice cream truck, that doesn't mean that the inventor of the ice cream truck concept has rights to a time machine that looks like an ice cream truck.
However, you are right that my post was mean. I should be nicer, but I'm loosing patience with Georg. The Newton comment was relevant, because Georg has said "Newton didn't understand (blank)" many times, but at no point has he ever offered an alternative theory or set of maths. My biggest problem with Georg is that no matter who makes an idea, what the idea is, or when they come up with it, Georg finds a way to make a reference to a device he's made, essentially taking credit for other people's ideas. he did that in this case and that is what made me mad, our devices are similar, but different. I proved his didn't work, this one I don't know about.
I want to assure you all that I would not take credit for another's idea, and I can prove it. Mr. Rustad has sent me explicit depictions of wheel designs, which I have found very interesting, but I have not even told you all about it until now. You can ask him, he has sent me at least one idea. Jim_mich has vaguely sent me ideas, and I asked to know how it is supposed to work, but he doesn't reply or kinda beats around the bush, I can tell that he doesn't feel comfortable telling me, since he wants to patent whatever idea he has.
The very fact that I know what all Georg has posted and know that you all have seen it precludes any chance of me convincing you all of the originality of my ideas, so why would I try? But I do feel that though this device is similar to Georg's, it has differences (rachet) that might make it workable. And that's a 'might' because though I was very excited about it at first, my experiments are showing less than I'd hope.
Guest, I am not some immature teenager, I post a lot because I have a lot to say. I have a lot of ideas and am very interested in the ideas everyone else has. I want to get theis problem solved! Does it make you feel smart to question people's motives?

[WaltzCee]

I find this interesting

Hi Jonathan,
the 'Drehmomentspeicher' has this name, because a perpetuum mobile device is not allowed to be patented in Germany. Should i name it Perpetuum mobile, why it is't ?

This developement is now over 2 years old. Do you think I have my developements stopped since that time ? I think you must dreaming. The 'Drehmomentspeicher' is not in balance as you think it must be, you are definitiv wrong.

But try your own experiments, you will spent a lot of time, and maybe, you are able to solve the problem in 1 year. I helped especially you a lot, but you don't like to hear it, or listen. That's not my problem. You can ignore my views, but as I said, Newtons laws are incomplete. You have to find that lack, I have it already. Or you will not be successful. Talk to you in one year again.

being bored, I've begun reading some of the first posts on the board. It seems I'm not the only one who thinks there are some irregularities in Newtonian physics. Künstler found something remarkable also.

He found a glitch 20 years ago!!! Still nothing.

Independent discovery to be sure.

[eccentrically1]

What’s missing? It must be the solution to pm if there’s a missing law of motion. Georg is in the right place if he knows, 19 years is a long time to sit on a scientific breakthrough like that. Haven’t heard from him in a while. Still building maybe.