Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference

[Robinhood46]

I've been trying to share my thoughts on a wheel with a fundamental difference which i think very important.
My use of the words "going around in circles" doesn't appear to be meaning the same to others as it does to me.
As it has clearly been said by many, what we mean and what others think we mean are often totally different.
If i take 1000 images of gravity wheels from a google search. 999 are going around in circles and one is not.
The fact that i can only find 1 that is not i find rather curious. The 1 that is not was designed by Leonardo Da Vinci.
Here is a link for those not familiar with his attempts.
http://www.edgeofyesterday.com/time-tra ... on-designs
To help understand exactly what i mean;
If you take any gravity wheel you choose and spray paint 1 weight very badly, being sure to spray the wheel at the same time.
If you turn the wheel 14 Million times you will see that the painted weight will ALWAYS be in the same area/section as the overspray on the wheel and that 14 Million times the sprayed weight will be in exactly the same place as when you painted it.
If you do this to Leonardo Da Vinci's try you would not find the same result.
I can fully understand that my way of explaining my thoughts is not clear, but it is very clear to me that if 999 out of 1000 are doing exactly the same thing in many different ways and that only 1 is doing something different, that maybe we need to focalise on trying to find variations to the 1 as opposed to adding a few thousand more attempts to the already thousands of existing failures.
Paint an arm and it's swivel
Paint a ball and it's housing
Coleur the water and paint it's bottle
paint a weight and its track
Find your way of understanding what "going around in circles" means.
When you understand what i mean you will see which of Leonardo's attempts are different.
Maybe you will find other attempts that i am not aware of, if so please share them.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,

masses going round in a circle will not create different forces.

when you look at your car wheel, then the technicians will make it go round by adding some weights here and here.

So what they do, they eliminate the extreme Forces. They eliminate the unround.

But exactly here the OU is to find. think on an broken or demaged axle, which extreme Forces will appear.

In my opinion many developers had already tried this way, but their model will always beeing destroyed, because we are handling here a positive Feedback Loop.

Bessler did it different, he controlled the positive Feedback Loop in that way, that he reduced the Feedback force from step to step until the Wheel was running in ist natural frequency.

When I look at my octagon walker, then I do exactly this, I have an high Speed difference between the outer and the inner mechanism.
It is the difference between the Standing outside Hamster Wheel and the inner free Forward falling tilting mechanism.
when the hamster Cage will start to spin, then the Forces between the inner and The outer will be reduced, until it will run in its own, natural frequency.

[Robinhood46]

when you look at your car wheel, then the technicians will make it go round by adding some weights here and here.

This is my point.
The technician will fix a weight to the wheel. The weight will go around with the wheel doing it's job of balancing.
If the weight is fixed to an arm that is fixed to the wheel it will be free to swing backwards and forwards and it will be going around with the wheel.
The arm and the weight being fixed to the wheel has no other choice than to go around with the wheel. The arm and the weight is going around in circles.
The point the weight is swinging from is fixed to the wheel, it does not, can not move because it is fixed.

The water/mercury is free to move in the plastic bottle but the bottle is fixed to the wheel. The bottle cannot move with relation to the wheel because it is fixed. The moving liquid and the bottle are going around with the wheel.

The balls in runners are free to run on the runners. The runners and balls are going around with the wheel because the runners are fixed to the wheel.

The hanging hammers are free to swing on the pivot that is fixed to the wheel. The hammers and pivots are going around with the wheel, they cannot do anything other because they are fixed.

The reason they are all "going around in circles" is because no matter what method you choose they are all fixed to the wheel at a specific point and this point never changes. It cannot, because it is fixed.
Every square mm of a wheel is going around in circles.
If you fix any kind of mechanisme to a wheel it too will be going around in circles. It cannot do otherwise. No matter what you try to force the weight to do, because it is fixed to the wheel it will be "going around in circles".
Unfix the bottles,runners or pivot points and let them move. You will then have weights that cannot go around in circles.
They cannot go around in circles because nothing is fixed to the wheel.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,
maybe you now understand why I have said you need two independent systems.
One system is acting with/or against the other.
A fix axle will never produce OU.
Again have a look to a walking, the walking mechanism has only one fix axle, and this fix axle is on the hamster cage.
The internal mechanism can free fall forward and therefore move freely.

You can describe the function also as a drive the driver, because the hamstercage and the walker is coupled.
But they are loose coupled.

So what will make the internal mechanism get to fall ?
It will fall if you turn the hamster cage left or right.
but the first fall will move the Hamster cage, so the internal octagon will fall again and again. Drive the driver. Coupled in a feedback loop.
Both are turning in one direction, until you reach the natural frequency.

I have attached a picture from my archive for a better understanding.

[Robinhood46]

Georg,
I have already shared my thoughts and explained what i found with all my attempts with many weird and wonderfull shapes rocking or swinging within a wheel.
We both agree that fixed mechanismes cannot be of any use.
The rocking mechanisme does effectively give a moving mass with regard the wheel, this is very promising. This is why i tried so hard with so many variations to achieve PM. It doesn't work. This is obviously just my own conclusion from my own experience.
I can fully understand your wish to insist that something can be gained.
There are two options to be considered;

1 What you are explaining i have already tried in many different ways but you THINK i have missed something.

2 I HAVE missed something and you can't explain what it is so that i can see it.

I think the situation is the 1st option and i think you opt for the 2nd.

I have already siad that we do not need to replicate Bessler's wheel to have a runner. The Buzzsaw is not a replication of Bessler's wheel allthough it was (probably) PM. Very few of bessler's clues can be related to the Buzzsaw.
The rocking swinging construction does not relate to Bessler's clues, this does not mean that it cannot be PM.
Why i think the swinging of the weights and the pivot points is the answer is because not only it does relate to Bessler's clues in many ways, but also it would give the answer to the Buzzsaw. This is because the weights of the two known (probable) PM machines would have weights taking very close to identical paths.
In both variations the weights would do a whole turn of the wheel at a fixed point on the wheel and then, when it is each weights turn, it will take a different path. The taking of a different path (when it is it's turn) is the driving force of the Bessler wheel and the Buzzsaw.
The fundamental principal of the two versions is identical.
The clues from the Buzzsaw are clues for PM. The clues for Bessler's wheel are for PM.
Bessler made it very clear he had found the principal of PM. He certainly implied that it was THE principal. His words i believe were "the universal principal of perpetual motion".
I think it is fair to assume that the Bessler wheel and the Buzzsaw both used the same principal, because both of them were perpetual motion.
We could if we wish believe that in one , the other or both stories there are just lots of liers and stupid people and it's all a load of nonsense.
If your version of the Bessler wheel cannot be applied to the Buzzsaw then the probability of it being a runner is equal to the probability that Bessler didn't really understand his own machine.
It is possible that Bessler was not aware that PM could be made by a multitude of "principals". I find this highly unlikely myself. If this was the case i think finding one of the many principals would have already happened. Looking for a needle in a haystack that has a hundred needles is far easier than when there is just one.
The rocking construction cannot, in my opinion be the answer. I have clearly explained my findings. I would very much like to know what it is that you think i have missed. I am more than happy to have missed something but i cannot grasp what it is that you think i've missed.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,
the principle which you are looking for is comming from nature, it is the positive feedback loop.
It is not Bessler I know, Bessler is a toy, compared what we can do today.
The principle is also valid in the electronic with the feedback audion.

Every time the engineers are using it, they will restrict it for our use, because it is unwanted in their opinion.

The Bessler wheel is only an mechanical oscillator with this feedback loop.
The hit, stroke, impact or whatever you call it does not drive the wheel.
The hit is there to arrange the free swinging weights forward and up.
Then this swinging is blocked for reswing, the result is the asymmetric torque.
So your opinion that the hit is hindering is wrong, it helps to make the octagon tumbling forward. The hit brings it out of balance.

A simple feather mass system with a spring allows you to create an undampen oscillation.

Bessler's wheel can be made with different components, but all of them use a specific shape of the oscillation, it is a sawtooth characteristic.
It is used because we need this to harvest energy from gravity.
To harvest we need a speed difference between up and down.

Bessler was a master in mechanic and had not used Newtons laws.
But he know springs from his watchmaking. He was aware of the oscillation and also from the resonance problematic, because he was able to built organs.

If you have more questions, feel free to ask. [/b]

[Robinhood46]

Georg,

To harvest we need a speed difference between up and down.

This is one of the common problems with the majority of gravity wheels.
For them to be runners, they need to be able to lift up weights faster so as to have them in a position to create mouvement.
This cannot be done. Thousands of people have tried and it is impossible. You need more energy to accelerate the mass going up than what the mass will provide coming down.
Your rocking/falling octogan is exactly what is needed to have a runner because it is (if it worked) a mass which is rotating off center with regard the wheel axis. The fact that it is off center means that it would be permanantly trying to find rest at the bottom of the rotating frame. The rotating frame is permanently moving so it cannot find rest.
The problem is, it is the rotating frame that is rotating the octagon. You are trying to push the horse with the cart. This does not work.
The principal of what you are saying is the answer. The method by which you are trying to achieve it doesn't work. You need to pull the cart with the horse.
The eliptical path of the swinging weights must take the exact same path that would take your octagon mass. Off center with regard the roating frame. The horse must take a circular path and pull the swinging cart so that it takes the off centerd eliptical path. The cart will be creating the excess energy but it will be being pulled by the horse and not pushed. The natural swing of the weights does this, there is no force needed to lift anything. The (working) weights are risen an equal distance to that of what they fall. The speed they rise is equal also. There is no need to rise a weight higher on one side to gain force the other (We know this cannot be done).
If the distance up is equal to the distance down everything is balanced.
If the up is closer to the vertical axis than the down, you have a COM that is identical to what you are trying to get your material mass to do.
Your octagon is walking/falling/moving with regard the wheel.
My COM is walking/falling/moving with regard the wheel in exactly the same way.
Your octagon needs lifting to be able to fall in one direction or the other.
My COM needs pulling laterally one way or the other.
There is no vertical acceleration needed only lateral and the natural swinging of the weights does this.
It is less work to move a swinging weight laterally than it is to lift it.
We do not need to achieve any gain whatsoever in hieght, we just need the weights path to be off center.

[Fletcher]

We do not need to achieve any gain whatsoever in height, we just need the weights path to be off center.

That's it in a nut shell RH.

We need the weights to take an off-center path so that the wheel CoM/CoG spends the majority of its time displaced to the side of the axle and Center of Rotation (CoR). The CoM can move around a bit but must predominantly be in the quarter of the down-going side.

How to mechanically achieve that PM Principle of sustained rotation is the genius or inspiration required.

Bessler built and displayed many wheels. He says some used different 'principles'. I take that to mean he could change the internal arrangements and mechanisms as he saw fit if they had some potential to do what he required them to do. But his PM Principle, which was the horse that pulled the cart imo, must have been consistent and present in all his wheels.

As you probably know by now I strongly advocate that he initially built dual internal mechanisms that in some respects were torque mirrored i.e. they both turned the same way but their deployment basically caused a near to nullification or cancelling of the individual mechs torque. The up shot being that these dual systems were in near balance (i.e. little or no torque).

Then he introduced a third arrangement or apparatus that introduced overbalance.

The combined interplay between the dual torque balanced systems and the off-set arrangement then embodied his true mechanical PM Principle, IMO.

Later as time passed and his wheels grew bigger and more powerful, and his knowledge of his PM Principle "Horse" deepened, he was able to simplify his final solution to one particular preferred type of "balance system" and then add the off-set arrangement, also IMO.

[Robinhood46]

Fletcher, I'm pretty much convinced it was far more simple than that.
He would not have thrown a wobbly for taking a peek inside if it was complicated. He knew very well that anyone who saw how it worked would understand it immediately. At least this is what i believe he believed.
"We do not need to achieve any gain whatsoever in height, we just need the weights path to be off center."
This can be relatively easily accomplished by simply walking the pivot points aroind the wheel and letting the weights swing.
A weight hung from the rim of a wheel (or from an arm) will naturally swing accross the wheel. The secret is to not need to get it to swing back. This is achieved by simply keeping it at the rim for a full rotation and allowing the pivot to swing forward and then the weight can again swing accross the wheel.
That is the long and the short of it. Once you have watched a weight do a full turn and then swing accross the wheel, do another full turn and swing again accross the wheel you will have seen more than enough to understand the principal.
All the weights on the rim balance each other out. The swinging accross the wheel needs only to be a fraction off center and you have a runner.

[Fletcher]

Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler !

Thing is I'm starting with a theory for a PM Principle that at least 'seems' eminently logical, to me !

To take a bunch of mechs and a single wheel and try to make it keep turning might 'seem' more simple, but the PM Principle is MIA, IMO.

Each to their own.

[ME]

We do not need to achieve any gain whatsoever in height, we just need the weights path to be off center.

That's it in a nut shell RH.

We need the weights to take an off-center path so that the wheel CoM/CoG spends the majority of its time displaced to the side of the axle and Center of Rotation (CoR). The CoM can move around a bit but must predominantly be in the quarter of the down-going side.

How to mechanically achieve that PM Principle of sustained rotation is the genius or inspiration required.
...

At least the geometrical requirement for an overbalanced path is, in a nut shell, the raising of a weight [link].
The point: offsetting a circular path is exactly the issue of continuously raising a weight.

[Robinhood46]

Me,

The point: offsetting a circular path is exactly the issue of continuously raising a weight.

I do not agree with that.
Continuously movig a weight laterally is not the same as continuously raising a weight.
Bessler did say somewhere about it being easier to move weights horizantally then vertically. i can't remember his exact words.

As Fletcher said "Each to their own."

Another thing that i can't make my mind up on is this 1 pound weight lifting a 4 pound weight.
If a 1 pound weight is fixed at the rim with a 4 pound weight hanging from it then the 1 pound weight WOULD lift the 4 pound weight from the rim. The following rotation, EITHER the 4 pound weight lifts the 1 pound weight (with 4 pound weight fixed to rim) OR the 1 pound weight is allowed to swing forward infront of 4 pound weight to lift it up again off the rim.
Allthough this is a way of lifting a 4 pound weight with a 1 pound weight it doesn't fit (in my opinion) with what Bessler was saying.
Maybe the difference between the uni-directional wheels and the bi-directional had something to do with the two different methods of getting the 1 pound weight infront of the 4 pound weight to be able to lift it off the rim.
The wheel i am at present buiding only has weights of equal weight. Therefore it is the first method.
The 1 pound weights taking it in turns to swing forward infront of the other 1 pound weights to alternatelly lift each other off the rim.
This method needs an odd number of arms (fixing points around the rim of the wheel). I am trying with 5 points for ease of construction. There are 8 weights but this WILL NOT give the "about" 8 knocks per revolution. There will be only 5 knocks.
It WILL give me a better understanding of everything that is going on during rotation.
7 points would need 12 weights and give 7 knocks, 9 points would need 16 weights and give 9 knocks.
The number of points (and weights) determines at what height the weights swing across the wheel. 5 = just a fraction below the central axle. 7 points = just above and 9 points = even more above the central axle.
The second method, the 1 pound weights swinging infront of the 4 pound weights would allow for even numbers of points and the number of weights would be = to the number of points. 8 points = 8 x 4 pound weights, 8 x 1 pound weights and could = 8 knocks per revolution.
If the swinging forward of the 1 pound weights could be heard there would be 16 knocks. 8 x 1 pound weight + 8 x 4 pound weight.
If the 4 pound weights are held for a full rotation (while the 1 pound weight swings forward) there would be 8 knocks. 4 x 1 pound weight + 4 x 4 pound weight. The problem with the last option is, where to swing the weights to? The weight that is destined to do a full rotation is in the way.
This can be overcome by having an odd number of fixing points (arms) and the number would be 15. This would give 7.5 knocks per revolution.
7.5 is as near as can find to correspond with "about 8".

[ME]

Continuously movig a weight laterally is not the same as continuously raising a weight.

Yes it is.

[gravitationallychallenged]

@ Rh46

If a 1 pound weight is fixed at the rim with a 4 pound weight hanging from it then the 1 pound weight WOULD lift the 4 pound weight from the rim. The following rotation, EITHER the 4 pound weight lifts the 1 pound weight (with 4 pound weight fixed to rim) OR the 1 pound weight is allowed to swing forward infront of 4 pound weight to lift it up again off the rim.

Have you considered placing the 4 pound weights around the center of rotation in order to lift the 1 pound weights located near the rim?

Weights located closer to the axle move at a slower speed and are supported mostly by the axle, not the rim of the wheel. Centrifugal force is less powerful near the axle due to the smaller circle of travel. Gravity still has the same amount of force near the center and at the rim of the wheel. A 4 pound weight can lift a 1 pound weight quickly and easily while a falling 1 pound weight can have enough leverage to lift a 4 pound weight upwards on the other side of the axle.

This could be one meaning behind Bessler's principle of 'excess weight.' It could also explain why he only built one 3 foot diameter wheel. As he scaled the wheels larger the distance was greater between the centrally located weights and the perimeter weights.

Bessler said that he allowed his friends to remove the bolts in the axle of the wheel and that they regulated the mechanism of the wheel.

Why can't excess weight located near the center of rotation have enough gravitational power to lift a weight at the rim, overcome centrifugal force and compress springs, all with great speed?

[Robinhood46]

Fletcher,

Have you considered placing the 4 pound weights around the center of rotation in order to lift the 1 pound weights located near the rim?

I can't remember the exact weight of the weights but for argument's sake, yes, i have tried a few along those lines. More often than not the more moving parts added to the wheel, the faster it loses it's momentum. Sometimes the loss is not as fast. The longest running wheels are generally those that get jammed and absolutely nothing moves, these can sometimes turn for a long time.
I'm pretty much convinced that the weights AND mechanismes need to evolve and not go around in circles with the wheel.
Once i have this try turning, and the swapping and swinging of the weights happening, i'll have a better understanding of everything.
My preliminary trials were very promising, which is why i am very enthusiastic about this one. Now that i can see the similarity with 100% of non runners and have found a way to do something different i will be going back through my other attempts with this difference, if my first attempt fails.
I just hope others can also see the fundamental difference and they are trying different versions of it.

Bessler said that he allowed his friends to remove the bolts in the axle of the wheel and that they regulated the mechanism of the wheel.

I cannot even consider this being applicable to what i am building, for there isn't a central axle where the weights are, they are swinging below the center from the rim at the top of the wheel. I can however very easily see that bolts screwed into the axis of the 7,9 or 15 points (arms) versions could well be adjusted to have an effect on the swinging of the weights. This would considerably complicate the connecting rods between the pairs. This is the reason i chose 5 arms. You gotta start somewhere.