path_finder's Overbalanced wheel

[veproject1]

Physical implementation of path_finder Idea of 2012.
How the machine should work in the mind of inventor, on video

[Fletcher]

Very nice builds as usual veproject1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOLX-Cp0zsw

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=veproject1

[Robinhood46]

Veproject1
This method uses that principal at the top of the wheel but at the bottom it is different. Bessler did say something about "a weight moving back, but it wasn't a problem", or something along those lines. I can't find the exact wording that he used or which wheel he was refering to, i just remember he spoke of a weight going backwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9w0CE6KdUw

[raj]

mispost

[raj]

My first drawing on my first thread on this forum 10 years ago, showing concept showing use of heavy bobs T-SHAPED pendulums, in 2010.

Nice to know what Path_Finder had to say on seeing this drawing.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Raj,
the construction in the first look is similar, but the action is different.

The difference of your T-shaped pendulum and the other construction is the distribution of the masses.

Yours is in balance when in motion.
The other is in inbalance during motion, because it uses different lever arm lengths.

Nevertheless, both constructions do not match what Bessler did.

I assume that veproject1 construction will not run when he will start the rotation in the other direction.
Also I don't see an self acceleration.

To sum it up, the construction concept is faulty to extract energy from gravity.

One essential construction detail is missing,
"to set the system under stress with gravity".

Raj, you know me, I only describe what I can see in the both constructions.

[Tarsier79]

Veproject has always demonstrated unworkable devices. That is what he does. Nothing you see on his videos is a true demonstration. They are faked, and that is his point. If he felt it would prove something running the other way, he would.

Is Veprojects methods closer to Besslers than anyone here? Maybe.

[veproject1]

In my post I said "how the machine should work in the mind of inventor"and it's easy to understand the meaning

mispost

[Tarsier79]

veproject, I should have also mentioned that your builds are very clever. I am not surprised people want you to build their wheel. Nice work.

[raj]

Within Newton’s laws, there is something that has not been mentioned and used in the right place, is ‘TENSION ‘ and tension force.

The other thing not fully appreciated is the use of strings and cords. The beauty of using strings is that IT can be used only for pulling and cannot be used for pushing, JUST like gravity.

Therefore using string to pull from above while gravity is pulling from below. That what pendulums with swinging strings with lweights/bobs on rim of a rotating wheel will do

Raj

[jonnynet]

The concept we see here is still the most promising, because if we can manage to get overbalance on a single shaft, this would lead to a high efficient and powerful wheel, which not only could turn fast but silent too! Fact is, there's no law that forbides anything here.
Two weights, just like veproject1's model has, attached to the same shaft are needed to be interconnected indirectly, by a leverage system that doesn't need an additional support point. Another pivot, but virtual, is required. It's time to find out how this can be done.

[Tarsier79]

Jonnynet. OB doesn't turn a wheel. PE loss does. This wheel has no PE loss. Energy is converted from the mass losing height. Every build I have done has confirmed this.

[Georg Künstler]

The concept shown in this tread is a system were the CoM is below the axle, that is the first point.
The sum of the masses are below the pivot point.

The second point is that it is a symetrical built and started with a push.
It is an isoloated system therefore, with no interaction.

The second system is the hand, which starts the wheel.
The energy in the wheel is the energy transferred from the hand.

So as I said before, a wrong concept.

We need a concept were the CoM is above the pivot point and an interaction.
We must subtitute the Hand by an other force supplied from gravity.
Two interacting weights under stress from gravity will do it for us.

[agor95]

In my post I said "how the machine should work in the mind of inventor"and it's easy to understand the meaning

I have pondered your contribution to humanity.

The for and against are well balanced, but what a balance you have found!

To para-phrase :-

'What is worse than people talking about perpetual motion
is people not talking about perpetual motion'.

Also a world where your presence was absent would be a poorer world.

The Youtube channel presents to the widest audience possible.
People will perceive what they believe they see.
Others will learn hopeful to understand the physics before them.

All the Best

[jonnynet]

Jonnynet. OB doesn't turn a wheel. PE loss does. This wheel has no PE loss. Energy is converted from the mass losing height. Every build I have done has confirmed this.

Isn't it matter of interpretation? Finally overbalance can cause movement (rotation) as long as it persists. Regarding this design, it's the question where the COM remains. A quick sketch as follows.