Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy

[mickegg]

Hi Guys

Fletcher, for sim purposes, would it be acceptable to use a long lever/pendulum geared to the flail pinion?

If weighted at the rack position the weight would experience the rack's cf albeit in an small arc...but not much travel required to give you 90 degrees of flail movement.

This may provide you with a way to test the flail force transfer mechanism if the non linear movement can be tolerated

Regards

Mick

Edit:File added

[Fletcher]

Thanks for the input guys .. I'll probably have a go at something - previously I've built parts of the mech but not a whole one - for a couple of reasons.

Firstly I believe that a controlled push of the rim is required, & not a slap or bang kinetic impact - that's from my own sim tests & from Bessler's comments about use of felt covering etc i.e. we know any sort of soft wood or covering to absorb noise of impact severely reduces energy transfer due to reduced elasticity, so he did not do that or if he did have an impact of some sort it was a by-product of engagement between flail & rim stop & an incidental issue in that context i.e. it wasn't the main focus.

Secondly my sim program can only handle a certain level of complexity before it either dies (stops working) or I get pop up inconsistent constraint messages - anything with gears seems to bring this on quickly.

I use the sim to test parts movements in the main - it is not a substitute for understanding parts interactions, though its often very good at that as well, providing the sim is simple enough to run accurately - so I'm always on a mission to simplify to bare essentials - & sometimes that's still not enough to have a complete sim, especially when you have to improvise latches & catches etc.

..........................

Although I have tried to explain this idea from all conceivable angles, I may have done myself a disservice in the longer run.

What I think I will do is go back to the basic principle of the RBGS - even though I've shown it & said it a few times I don't think the message has entirely sunk in.

I will show the comparison between the standard regular RBGS which has a weight suspended on a string hanging from the beam, & lifting that onto the rim stop - you will see that we have a lever & that we have effectively taken a weight off at a closer radius & placed it further out at a greater radius - this causes leverage which turns the lever - N.B. the RBGS is just a continuous lever.

The wheel will only accelerate gaining rpm for the distance the string slack allows (not far at all) - you don't need a sim to see that to lift & place that weight on a rope onto the rim stop requires it be given PE, & that the wheel will gain rpm, momentum & KE to the tune of the PE given to the bob, & no more - zero sum game - we also have a reset problem, even if it could somehow gain KE above PE given - we have to lift the bob each cycle into position - this is why regular RB's & RBGS don't & can't ever work - just ask RAR.

In my force transference method the flail is in contact with the rim for a much longer time & distance than the standard comparison - & yet we have the same situation of shifting a force from a closer radius to a further out radius on the lever - it does not matter whether the force varies a little at the rim or whatever because IINM an equal & opposite force occurs at the pinon/beam boundary - so we have CCW force equalled by CW force which nets to a CW torque due to leverage principles - I say again this is over a much longer distance (almost 1/4 circle) for a much longer time, THAN THE STANDARD WEIGHT FORCE TRANSFERENCE MODEL OF A RBGS.

NO, I can not do an energy budget for this idea because physics says it is impossible (the physics, the symmetries, & math doesn't allow it) - I can only point to combining of mechanical principles.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

Although I have tried to explain this idea from all conceivable angles, I may have done myself a disservice in the longer run.

No I don’t think that because it would scatter there anyway. I think you did a great job at a slow presentation trying to keep active minds on the rails. A review wouldn’t hurt though, I had to go back and study your comments and diagrams many times. It would have been easier if it was all in one close area of the thread. Fletcher we all know it is easier to be skeptical than it is to believe because the skeptics have science and history on their side. Why actually try to understand, when you can just blurt out it will never work because one doesn’t want to have to put any work or grey matter into understanding the claim. To all those confused, start with a toy model of the RBGS; build it out of your child’s lego/ Meccano and get a feel for the 5 gear type.

[Fletcher]

Good advice dax ..

If you can understand how a standard RBGS works & why it can't be reset or give extra momentum & energy then you are half way there to perhaps finding a work around to the continuous out-of-balance lever (or many levers in a wheel) that once set in motion can not find equilibrium or PQ (where it stops).

[daxwc]

There is no use being impatient now ;)

Don’t be disappointed Fletcher over how many comments or contributions you get. Some people don’t understand, some people understand but can’t help progress it further, and some people understand but don’t wish to look stupid in front of others with their questions or ideas. It is going to take a while for the coffee to percolate.

Something to contemplate on: From Bessler’s estate 48 iron gears for the water machine.

[Fletcher]

Not disappointed dax .. maybe a bit impatient at times .. it has been as I expected without a working model ..

I have started the process of easing out of this Bessler mystery & discussion board & letting it go .. this thread is a little legacy.

I've openly made my contributions, as have others, but until there is new information or facts presented from others doing their own research who are willing to fully share in order to actually advance & solve this mystery then the law of diminishing returns has reached its limit for me ;7)

P.S. nice catch about the gears.

[MrVibrating]

Know exactly how you feel. Hard to put it down entirely tho.

The roberval balance encapsulates an angle on the problem that i still chew over as i drift off each night - and i wonder if i'll ever get my head fully around it...

What got me signing up here in 2010 was the realisation that if we could move horizontally into an OB position, drop, then slide back again horizontally into a balanced position, Bob's yer proverbial.

So simple. You can picture the disembodied weights following that trajectory, devoid of any connecting mechanism behind them. But what could such a mechanism look like?

The basic Roberval can't accomplish this because its sole purpose is not to over-balance when the weights are moved horizontally.

I tried a double-Roberval - where two balances are superimposed, with a horizontal offset, and the weight slides across two adjacent platforms, so shifting between separate balances. But that doesn't work.

The problem i keep coming up against is that the weights, or whatever they're supported by, need to rotate downwards in order to extract any useful work from any overbalance achieved. Which inevitably requires rotating upwards again afterwards - defeating the whole objective of neatly sliding sideways-only.

It's this terse little microcosm on the whole facade that i'm sure will one day send me muttering incoherently to the asylum. They need to rotate to descend, yet if only they could just slide horizontally, translations antiparallel to the force vector are free with respect to it. That's become a little shiboleth for me, you may have noticed. Yet it's axiomatic...

Slide out sideways to OB & drop, slide back in sideways, rotate around and repeat. That's also axiomatic.

But i can't for the life of me generalise the mechanics into a conclusive solution, for or against... i can't see a viable mechanism, yet if it's mechanically impossible, i cannot fathom why.

I wish i could just forget this whole angle and move on, yet it seems to tantalizingly frame a solution, if without actually nailing it. It's like i've got the tail and the donkey but somehow can't pin them together..

Every damn night, gone 3 or 4 am, these are the sheep i'm counting...

[triplock]

Fletcher

I have to say that you , in no way, should feel disappointed. Your topic, and explaination posted, are a perfect example of how to approach matters from an analytical stand point.

If the scientific community at large had your inquisitive mind then it would go some way to dispelling the perception that it's a snobbish boys' club. Any Professor who doesn't look beyond the horison of current understanding is no more than a parrot paraphrasing Classical Mechanic text books.

As a stand alone entity, gravity equalised structure are, although interesting to look at, are self limiting. To make use of them they have to be placed within an environment that is subject to change, and they require a lot less subtle approach than motion transfer can offer .

As I said previously, you are right, but for the wrong reasons.

Chris

[johannesbender]

Fletcher , if I were half as intelligent as I wish
to be ,I could probably understand what is being digested here by other's who understands these things , reading through the last couple of comments
I get the feeling that people who understand more than I do ,are seeing something important here (which is why you shown it) ,but if only I could have had half
the understanding I probably would have praised you
for it.

how many times have some of us come up with
something that improved on one of the core problems
faced with this mystery ,just to be left feeling like we
accomplished nothing , I say to you ,any step forward
is a step worth taking .

throughout my time dabbling in this very addictive
mystery of Bessler ,whether false or fact , I can
say that in my experience ,every breakthrough comes
in little strides forward , most of them has negative aspects but however small/big the positive are ,we
should continue to build upon them and keep climbing out that mountain of steps ,I feel like there has been many people here who has solved some of the problems we need to overcome ,it is however sad
that most of the time others do not see these ingenious steps forward for the genius it took however small or big it were forwards .

revelations do not come easy and they come maby once per lifetime for some , it is important that whomever came up with the solution to any problem ,should not throw in the towel because the next revelation might just be the K.O punch ,the bell has not rang yet ,so keep your fists up and your eyes on the target .

if we are pursuing the impossible blindly ,so be it .

@ Mr vibrating ,haha ,we would most likely share the
same asylum wards , the worst part is waking up ,realising you could hear yourself mumbling the same things right through the night whilst asleep ,and then remember inspecting a working solution in your dream only to forget the important details of why the hell it worked. .

jb

[FunWithGravity2]

Fletcher

As I said previously, you are right, but for the wrong reasons.

Chris

If you knew how much that one sentance was able to tell people about you and your actual progress.


Share or shut up about it, that should be the name of the website and even then......

[triplock]

FWG2

It is irrelevant to me what your perception of my approach is on this forum. That is not said to be insensitive rather a fact of life. In any event, why would it matter ?. We all choose different paths to disclosure (or not).

We are, for the most part, strangers although we share a common interest.

When the 2 patents reach the publication stage I will then let them be reviewed. I will then accept criticism if I have been deluded. I'm not above that. But that critique, good or bad, will not impact me one iota. I will pick myself and carry on.

Ultimately, the fact that I believe I have designed something of relevance to our common search, to the point where I'm prepared to protect by way of the IPO, is of relevance. I'll make that clarification now.

One thing for sure is is that I will send to both Fletcher, Tarsier and Ralph for peer review because, in their own field of expertise, they are second to none and I respect them greatly for it.

I can't, for the moment, think of what area your expertise is in FWG2. maybe you could enlighten me and I'll send you a copy ? Until then, you'll have to remain annoyed.

Chris

[FunWithGravity2]

Chris,

MY expertise?
Of course im a wheel expert, just like you. but thank you for confirming to us that No POP exists currently for your wonderful patent. POP never needs to be confirmed once published. I can assure you that i am far from annoyed, i am dissapointed.

Please dont send me a copy, the correct approach is to file provisional application and then open up publicaly witht the hopes that you could improve the scope of your design while still having time to adjust terminology and design within reason for final application. Waiting till its granted or published is just asking for people to find work arounds or improvements and negate your patent quickly.but thats only if it has merit. Either way it is of no consequence here.

OR as Fletcher has so admirably done present his ideas open forum. IMHO the only real way at success if their is one but, one which most of us are not smart enough to do or lack the nerve.

Fletcher,
I have just mounted a new 6' wheel and was considering running a few CF experiments on RBGS but im just musing back through this thread to get an idea of what to reduce things to in order to focus on singular forces where possible. I am very interested and intrigued by the idea but have litttle to contribute so was not wanting to clutter it with my misunderstandings.

FWIW im also sorry that i was not able to not be childish, i just cant teach the old dog new tricks. Im over that now and will keep it to myself.

Crazy Dave

[triplock]

Dave,

Look, I appreciate your input and I actually value all feedback on this forum in regards to wheel concepts. That feedback, in the past, has acted as a check valve.

I, for one, prefer the direct approach, as that saves time.

In regards to the patents I have filed, there maybe a slight misunderstanding here. Obviously, until I am able to show, or disclose, I can only skirt around the issue. That is the restrictive path I have taken. I am honest about that though.

The devices under consideration by the IPO don't actually require a proof of Principle because they do not purport to produce Over Unity, nor are they so vague as to be misunderstood. They are very simple arrangements indeed that do not contradict any Physical Laws.

They have also been explained in such away as to cover all possible variants and adaptations. In patent terms, whether or not they can be configured to produce extended motion is an irrelevance tbh. In any event, those claims cannot form a part of the application.

Both applications have been subject to third party review by two Professors and are deemed to have merit. Indeed one device could be said to be based on a 4th lever principle whereby a mass can be remove from a system with that system remaining in a equitable state after (excess force if you will ).

The second device is a literal mechanical translation of the term 'a pendulum gains force from its swinging'. This again has been simulated at numerous ratios, with the outcome predicted from the outset. Again, the math has been done by others far, far cleverer than I to verifying the data and repeated outcome.

Both patents, subject to search, will be granted within 2 years as they do not attempt to head-butt the scientific consensus. They work because the Conservation of Energy Laws, and the predictability of sub system outcome, are use in a positive manner. I do not attempt to negate them.

Finally, I have no interest in building a 'wheel'. That is not my game plan. I am merely ring fencing a whole area of conceptual design so that , it is hoped, others are funnelled through that IP by way of licencing.

In that regard, I can never be called dishonest as I have always made it quite clear what my intention is. It is no doubt the same as 50% of the members here. I, unlike those people, see no reason to pretend otherwise.

Finally, when I said Fletcher was right, but for the wrong reasons, this was said because we are a) all entitled to an opinion and view point and b) experimentation and peer review has shown an alternate approach. So in that regard, I do not sit in a darken room and stab wildly in the dark. I do have a validation procedure in place quite separate from this forum.

Chris

[Fletcher]

Dave .. someone, somewhere, has made the connection between Bessler's written words (& codes), the witness accounts, & a mechanism used in conjunction with other mechanics, that is the path to Bessler's self described "True PM".

I'll happily support anyone who wants to experiment on the RBGS, Cf's & flails etc, & is prepared to show & discuss their findings - clearly I cannot these days else I would have.

This thread has been somewhat cathartic for me - an opportunity to clear clutter from a recess of my brain that was growing larger over time because I hadn't 'downloaded' in a long while - I've presented an idea & concept as thoroughly as I'm able - part of my reasoning in doing it this way was to keep people off balance so they wouldn't be second guessing me & falling into default "it's impossible" mode like an automaton - & secondly to put the concept & explanations in the public arena as open source so that should there be proved some time in the future to be some merit in them they can not be patented - therefore it is of no value to anyone researching similar lines to remain in the shadows or act as a parasite.

Look forward to whatever you or dax for example can contribute here-on-in.

[triplock]

Fletcher,

Fortunately for me I have absolutely no use for the classic Roberval Balance as I spent a year looking into it, with 100's of variants, and it proved to be a fruitless task. Doesn't mean there is no use, just I couldn't find one.

Also, why the parasite comment ? Have I not been polite and communicative in this post when looking at your concept ? Does ego not allow you to consider for one moment that someone else can come up with their own ideas quite distinct and separate to anything that has gone before it ? TBH, you haven't even scratched the surface of PE neutral structures.

Where you are now is where I was 12 months ago in terms of peeling back the layers. Again, I say this with absolutely no disrespect, rather as an observation of fact.

If these comments grate some members here, then that is fine. They are designed to stop you getting dizzy from the circles you are going around in.

So Fletcher, if you wanted me to take offence then you have succeeded. You had a shitty little tantrum basically. Tut tut. I clearly was wrong to think that you was above all that.

Chris

PS I do have a further 3 patents to file before xmas. Rest assured, they refer to nothing shown on here in this post or others, unless someone wants to claim the IP rights to a pivot point or length of rod. Anyone ?

PPS Scientific Snobbery seems to exist everywhere.