Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference

[Robinhood46]

Here is a different way of applying the mechanism of the woodchoppers on the toy page.
Because the arms, holding the weights, are in need of alternating pivot points, this could be the method used to achieve this, or something similar.
The central bar, which activates the moving in and out of the retractable pegs (pivots) could be moved by small weights or cords and pulleys.

[Robinhood46]

Here is a slight variation, and an image that most of us are famillier with.
Am i correct in believing that the image in question is from a verbal or written explaination of what someone who looked inside saw?

[ovyyus]

Am i correct in believing that the image in question is from a verbal or written explaination of what someone who looked inside saw?

No, you're not correct. The image is from someone's imagination.

[Robinhood46]

Ovyyus,
Thanks for clearing that up.
Making the mistake of missinterpretating what we read, or mixing things together that should be kept apart, is a very easy thing to do. I don't know where this came from, but i was under the understanding that it was drawn by someone "using their imagination" to show how they interpretated the explaination of someone who saw inside.
Correcting my mistake, is helpfull, although i do think shedding a little light on the matter would have been more helpfull than just pointing out that i am wrong.
RH

[ovyyus]

RH, who described what they saw inside Bessler's wheel?

[Robinhood46]

Ovyyus,
I had a doubt about something, i thought, which is why i asked for a confirmation. "am i correct in believing?"
Pointing out that "no, you're not correct" has allowed me to know that my doubt had good reason to be. I can't understand the need to understand all the ins and outs of how i made this mistake. I made it, and thanks for clearing this up.
If you have any information regarding the drawing in question, i would much appreciate it. It is not the first thing about Bessler's wheel i have got wrong, and it most certainly willl not be the last.
RH

[Fletcher]

Here is a slight variation, and an image that most of us are famillier with.

Am i correct in believing that the image in question is from a verbal or written explanation of what someone who looked inside saw?

I have seen and dismissed that Bessler 'like' drawing before. I just called up Google images of Bessler Wheel and variations to try and find the web site it came from - no luck.

You must have saved the image from somewhere that could jog my memory ?

I have a back-of-mind thought that it was contained in web site dedicated to replicating or explaining Bessler's wheels. An Indian gentleman comes to mind. Could be wrong.

IIRC that drawing was his interpretation of the inside workings. Or some sort of remote viewing or devining etc. Not from some private written information he alone had in his possession from a person who looked inside describing the workings etc IINM.

[Fletcher]

OK - found it with a bit more perseverance.

Jim Hackenberger at Overunity.com in 2007 (in French).

http://freenrg.info/Bessler/besslerorff ... senpc0.jpg

https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=partner-p ... &sa=Search

https://overunity.com/2132/the-bessler- ... /#msg26514

https://overunity.com/4481/pseudonym/

http://quanthomme.free.fr/energielibre/machines/MVP.htm

[Robinhood46]

Thanks Fletcher,
I had a distinct recollection of the image from a few (lots) years ago. I could only remember le details vaguely. I did find curious that getting information on it was so difficult. You certainly have more patients than i when it comes to them computer thingies.
I think this sort of thing is a good example of how difficult it is to evaluate the truth, when we only have hearsay to work on, as with the Buzzsaw for example. By adding a vague memory to a modification of an actual Bessler image, it isn't difficult to see how easily the truth can be distorted over time.
"Merci à Jim pour cette image de la roue de Weissenstein"
A thankyou to Jim for this image of the Weissenstein wheel.
We can all be very thankfull of JC's hard work and dedication to reunite all the facts concerning Bessler's wheel and give us a solid base to work with.
Once again, thanks for allowing me to understand my mistake.
RH46

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,
not the wheel, but a pre step.

Here I like to explain my view of two systems and how they interact together.
On the left picture you see a normal pendulum, system one.
And you see also a weight on a spring, second system.
Everyone knows how a pendulum is swinging, also it is known how a weight on a spring will move.
Both systems are under stress from gravity, but one can only move left to right, system ohne.
The second system can move left and right and also up and down.
We only look now on the system two, it is a preloaded system from gravity, because the spring is stretched.

In the next step we couple the two so that they can interact.
Both are conneted via a rope. The system is in balance, but preloaded !!
When you now move the pendulum on the left side a little bit sidewards we get an variated force on the rope.
We have built an oscillator, but an undampen oscillator.

[Robinhood46]

Hi Georg,
The fundemental difference, that i believe to be important is the weights not being fixed to a specific section of the wheel. As i have already said, i think that many methods will be able to make runners, as long as this specific condition is respected. This is only my opinion, obviously. Therefore, any mechanism that doesn't respect this i am inclined to think it will be a non runner.
When i speak of the need for seperate systems, i am refering to the need of a system that is seperate from the wheel/frame. I think that two systems fighting against each other that are both fixed to the wheel will result in no net gain. In my opinion, the number of systems used to create the movement, or help the control of the movement is not important, as long as at least 1 of the sytems is rotating at a different speed to the wheel/frame.
We need to seperate the effect of gravity on the weights from the rotation of the wheel.
RH46

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,

I can agree to your opinion with one more specification.

In my opinion, the number of systems used to create the movement, or help the control of the movement is not important, as long as at least 1 of the sytems is rotating at a different speed to the wheel/frame.

The number of interacting systems has to be in minimum 2, it can be more.
Therefore I have made the drawing before.

One question, is the drawing before resulting in an undamped oscillation ?
In other words, is the swinging amplitude increasing ?

[Robinhood46]

This is an interesting read;
https://philarchive.org/archive/THOMML-2

Georg,
I think this is another case where we are saying exactly the same thing but in a different manner.
I cannot see a difference between
'The number of interacting systems has to be in minimum 2, it can be more".
And
The number of systems is not important as long as at least 1 is doing something different than another.
One system alone cannot do something different than another if there isn't another. Therefore the number is obviosly at least two.

So, no importance with at least two and a minimum of 2 but can be more, is exactly the same thing.

I considere the mass, and the moving there of, the wheel/frame itself, one system. Hence i believe one system in addition to the wheel could possibly be doable, as long as it is rotating at a different speed.
Is this what you dissagree with? Do you believe there is the "need" for two additional systems to the wheel/frame?
I haven't tried building anything that remotely ressembles your drawing, i have no idea how it would behave when incorperated into a rotating frame. I think it would be very difficult to synchronise any potential benefits from it. I would be interested in your findings if you do try it.
This is why i am pretty much convinced that the weights need to "swing somewhere" and stay there, to later "swing somewhere" again. I can't picture any swinging backwards and forwards of the weights with the rotational speed of the wheel.
RH

[Robinhood46]

Double post.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,
you wrote:

I considere the mass, and the moving there of, the wheel/frame itself, one system. Hence i believe one system in addition to the wheel could possibly be doable, as long as it is rotating at a different speed.
Is this what you dissagree with? Do you believe there is the "need" for two additional systems to the wheel/frame?

Maybe we can agree with this,
a second system in the wheel is essential,
so we have the wheel (outside) and an internal system(using the connectetness principle).
There is no need of an additional system, but they are allowed.

I agree on the different speed, the internal system must therefore be faster than the outer wheel, because it is the driver.

your wrote:

This is why i am pretty much convinced that the weights need to "swing somewhere" and stay there, to later "swing somewhere" again. I can't picture any swinging backwards and forwards of the weights with the rotational speed of the wheel.

It is true that we need the swing, but not backwards and forwards, only forwards.
Therefore I tried to block the reswing with my blocking device.
But that type of movement is hard to control.
So the free swing of the masses is limitated, they can only roll,swing,move in one direction.

If you have managed then to limitate the movement, then you need the start energy.
The start energy you will get when you set the internal system under stress from gravity.
So we have then a preloaded internal system.
The preload is also essential.