MT 24 Magic Pulsation

[Tarsier79]

I'm out. I don't think it will work.

There are positives and negatives either way you go. IMO it is pointless patenting without a working physical model.

If you do patent it and it works, you will not be able to afford the legal bills fighting corporations who might like to copy it. They only have to change a small percentage of its appearance and/or operation and your patent will mean nothing.

Open source will probably mean you don't get anything, perhaps some recognition (again, once a physical model is proven and replicated).

Good luck!

Kaine.

[Robinhood46]

I think you should go open source Preoccupied.
Not only will you face the problems Tarsier has mentioned, but it is also very likely that your method, with the patent for it, will probably be obsolete within 6 months to a year. Nobody will be interested in building your version, other than the people who only have the possibility to build the less performant version, people who build for personnel use who will not be giving you a penny, because they wouldn't be commercialising it, and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
Somebody else (corporation) will have a patent on the perfectioned version, and all the money, you like to think you will gain from your patent, will be going their way and not yours.
If you have the possibility to build a runner, then you should do so, then invite the local press to share it with the world and put an end to the nonsense of it being impossible. If you are unable to build a runner then sharing a simulation will enable someone else, who is able to build a runner, to do so. Your simulation shared publicly, which predates the appearance of the final proof, will be plenty enough evidence that you have made a huge contribution to resolving the problem and all due recognition will be coming your way.
The sooner the solution is in the public domain the better.

[preoccupied]

Bessler himself likely had other designs that worked. For example this isn't a self starting wheel. It has to be pushed to get it to work. Not all of Bessler's wheels were like that. I look forward to the remaining secrets about Bessler wheel being discovered. It's an academic quest. But I doubt any of them will work without transferring the force of gravity or possibly centrifugal using a spring. I think that spring use in the correct way can be a broad concept that I can own. I never imagined using the patent office on such a big discovery. I think this is a big enough thing for Congress themselves to create laws about. I might be the first special patent for extraordinary discoveries that only Congress can create rules for. I also think springs can assist with motion without external force for flying cars. Not that it's the only method of doing it because I have simpler methods in mind for that. I believe that the invention would be greatly appreciated and that all countries in the entire world will create special laws to make sure that I'm specially compensated for the discovery. I also think it would be unhealthy to take a huge chunk out of the economies of the world. Instead of removing fuel costs from world economies they should be replaced at least part of it with profit going to this new invention. The real advantage of a perpetual motion machine is to fight climate change. To simply change the design and say you invented a new perpetual motion machine doesn't make sense to me. Otherwise these perpetual motion machines would have been common before my discovery.

Tarsier79 do you think my wheel will run? Or do you think it's not worth patenting a working wheel? I think that my wheel will provide the force of constant retracting springs. or at its most efficient the force of the weights on the springs if the springs are about as strong as the weights. So constantly falling weights but not straight down falling, the force of them falling on the folding levers. Because there is two weights on folding levers it should be about as much as a single weight constantly falling. Not falling perpetually faster like in free fall but like falling for a short distance at that speed without perpetually increasing, not like a free fall. The maximum speed of the wheel should be the force of the spring in centrifugal force from the wheel. Once the wheel has centrifugal force equal to the spring it stops spinning any faster.

I don't think this will be my first trillion dollar venture. I'm a former time traveler and I started a business that I'm out of contact with when I invented my time machine as a kid. I think that I started numerous large companies with my ideas using time travel and that my money from is somewhere that I can't find after being hit on the head and forgetting how to contact it. I used to mail cassette tapes to a company that collected all of my instructions. I also made several cartoon series that I don't get credit for. But I was trying to publish as a ghost writer. I am simply out of contact with this money possibly trillions of dollars after being hit on the head.

[preoccupied]

I think you should go open source Preoccupied.
Not only will you face the problems Tarsier has mentioned, but it is also very likely that your method, with the patent for it, will probably be obsolete within 6 months to a year. Nobody will be interested in building your version, other than the people who only have the possibility to build the less performant version, people who build for personnel use who will not be giving you a penny, because they wouldn't be commercialising it, and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
Somebody else (corporation) will have a patent on the perfectioned version, and all the money, you like to think you will gain from your patent, will be going their way and not yours.
If you have the possibility to build a runner, then you should do so, then invite the local press to share it with the world and put an end to the nonsense of it being impossible. If you are unable to build a runner then sharing a simulation will enable someone else, who is able to build a runner, to do so. Your simulation shared publicly, which predates the appearance of the final proof, will be plenty enough evidence that you have made a huge contribution to resolving the problem and all due recognition will be coming your way.
The sooner the solution is in the public domain the better.

Where is MT drawings on Besslerwheel.com? There used to be like a wiki page or something I can't find it anymore. I wanted to look over Bessler's drawings to see if he hid anymore perpetual motion machines in plain sight like MT24 did.

Why do you guys act like such victims? I think that the discovery would be celebrated. Some people call perpetual motion machines the holy grail of science. If I'm victimized for discovering Bessler's wheel by corruption in corporate law I think that it would create an upset. Electric cars will become more popular once electricity can replace gas without causing carbon emissions. I not only want to own a patent on making Bessler's wheel I want special consideration to give me all of the benefit of the device from the law. I want all of the extra profits from producing electricity from the savings in fuel. I want all of the carbon credits to sell instead of the electric companies if carbon neutral power produces carbon credits and it should. I want it to cost like 50 thousand dollars to build one for personal use. I want my laws and patent life to last forever because it's so special. Only congress can give me a forever patent. Normal rules aren't good enough for a discovery this big. Transferring force using springs is so simple. I also think that springs can assist in some designs for propulsion using weights. What is so great about going public domain with a gravity wheel? What's the point of freebees? I bet if Jim_Mich were still alive that he would be proud of me for discovering Bessler's Wheel and would encourage me to make as much money as possible.

[Fletcher]

Have a look at Besslerwheel.com front page, right hand side panel called News

https://www.besslerwheel.com/

Bill McMurtry
introduces Bessler's
Maschinen Tractate
to the world

Preoccupied .. you will have noticed that MT25 has just 4 sectors and mechs, while MT24 is essentially the same machine with twice as many sectors and mechs. What's to stop you building (or simming) a 2 sector and mech wheel ? Each sector does not need to fill half the wheel. They could still be a quarter of the wheel like in MT24, but only 2 of them have mechs. The other sectors empty.

Do you agree that a 2 mech system (with your spring adaptations) should still generate an imbalance of forces causing a sustained rotation once given a push start, according to your claims ?

Or are you saying it will only work as you proclaim it will with the full 8 sector and mech compliment ?


If it should still generate an imbalance of forces from 2 mechs then nothing can be easier than that to sim, for anyone, IINM.


Just note that springs in sim world (some programs) are not quite like real world springs. Real world springs have energy losses due to deformation of the spring, and heat and sound losses, so you get back less than it is given, so to speak.

I don't know if Algodoo has the ability to adjust the springs so they are not perfect energy conserving springs (only found in sim world). I know that in WM2D it has perfect energy conserving springs which are good for initial design purposes. But it also has something called a 'dampened spring element' which I then use to replace the design 'perfect' spring if I get more serious about some design with them. Then I can adjust the dampening value to reflect a spring action much closer to the energy losses an ordinary mechanical real world spring would have when extended or compressed etc.

** I think before you get too far down the rabbit hole you sim a 2 mech wheel with your spring adaptations. Include dampened springs if possible. Add some air frictions for a quick and dirty approximation of ordinary system energy losses, like the real world. If that goes well for you increase the numbers of sectors and mechs until your computer and program complain, and then as I said earlier back it off to a number it can handle without spitting-the-dummy !

Good luck !

[preoccupied]

I think that MT25 with two mechs would work. It is basically the same thing. Now that I think about it I doubt Bessler used MT25 because it would stretch the spring a lot more. There is not much to gain from stretching the spring more unless gears are employed to take much of the distance and you had some gnarly tough spring. Perhaps in large machinery electricity production they will use a super thick spring and gears to help stretch it but I don't think it's necessary. I think this would be a pretty wild fast moving wheel without that strong of a spring. I'm really hesitant to use Algodoo. I feel like I'm on a wild goose chase trying to get the program to work. I think MT25 might work with one mech. But as a work producing wheel it would produce less impacts, it would be more of a toy.

Springs can last a long time. I think you are not looking in the short term. I think that a helical coil spring can last for months or years without replacement. That's probably why Bessler's wheel lasted for months without needing to be modified.

[preoccupied]

I tried to make MT25 in Algodoo and it wouldn't let me finish making it. It would unnecessarily clone weights and levers when I tried to glue circles/weights them to levers and then it started not letting me select more than one item. Is Algodoo an artificial intelligence? It seems like it's deliberately trying to sabotage me because I would create a perpetual motion machine. I think it started glitching a lot when I was just about to make a perpetual motion machine in its simulator.

[Fletcher]

You asked about jim_mich earlier .. he did often say (along with most others) "get something that Works", before going the patent route etc.

Where that came unstuck for him was when he developed his own inertia based design which he was adamant would be a runner, tho never revealed. He almost finished a POP (99.7% IIRC) and was planning on building many small models of his design to ship out to a few selected members to validate his claims, IIRC. "The Plan".

This is when he ran into trouble and got some flak. He changed his definition of "get something that Works", 'Works' being the operative word, to include his visual basic program and his code of his design, as "Works". While most everyone else saw "Works" as a real world POP build, as he initially did too.

Other than that he would have supported you going the patent route once you had something that worked !

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

ETA : No, Algodoo is not out to get you. Instead of copying each weight or lever etc from a previous (causing you problems), just make a new one each time you want one. Start with the 2 mech version and springs.

[preoccupied]

I made MT25 the way you said by instead of copying levers make them each time. It worked. But then the simulation just twitched randomly. Are you sure Algodoo isn't an Artificial intelligence that is rejecting perpetual motion machines? I don't need a simulation to tell me whether this design works. I've found Bessler's wheel.

What was Jim_Mich's inertia design? Did it use any springs? If he transferred force using springs it might work. But if he had that insight he likely would have seen MT24 for what it is immediately.

[MrVibrating]

As others have noted, MT 24 could be depicting clockwise overbalance, or else counter-clockwise KE gain.

Neither scenario actually succeeds of course; the CCW mech would rely on gravity to drop the radial translations as output GPE's, while converting the shrinking MoI component of their orbital angular momentum to velocity of the attached angular acceleration..

..in order to break symmetry however, that angular acceleration needs to actually gain momentum, not merely conserving it from elsewhere; upon impact / inelastic collision it would then transfer that momentum gain to the wheel body, accelerating itself a little each cycle. Furthermore however - and this is really the crucial bit - the energy cost of accruing that momentum gain over successive cycles has to remain speed-invariant, rather than squaring up with RPM alongside its corresponding KE value.

So, it's halfway there, but insufficient.

The winning interaction should, i believe, be reverse engineered from the hypothetical low-speed / high-power wheel he said he could build, if granted enough time.. since this epitomises all the key properties, moreso than the perhaps ambiguous characteristics of the one-way vs bi-directional wheels:

• the exploit fixes the unit energy cost of momentum from gravity and time across some finite range of RPM

• this RPM range is designed into the system - any wheel has its preferred design speed it will attempt to accelerate up to and coast at

• below this speed, the I/O G*t asymmetry and per-cycle momentum gain is maximal; at this speed it goes to near-zero, only sustaining itself over incidental losses, and pushed beyond this speed the asymmetry begins inverting, now sinking input momentum and energy to gravity, time and inertia

So the design speed is arbitrary; the force * displacement distributions of the output GPE's are arbitrary, and you can have many high-torque / low angle outputs per unit of system angle, however their I/O G-time symmetry is a variable function of RPM, starting out substantially positive, then tending to zero at the design speed, before inverting.

The key point is that the unit energy cost of this momentum is RPM-invariant (ie. time-invariant) - even though the per-cycle momentum yield is decreasing with rising velocity, its energy cost of accumulation is not increasing, hence doubling the RPM only costs double the input work done / PE expended.

The high-torque / low-speed wheel is the embodiment that brings everything into sharper focus. F=mA, and likewise torque = angular inertia * angular acceleration, along with its respective inversions; at its design speed, then - no matter how slow that may be - the wheel is producing no torque, gaining no momentum, nor producing any energy.

It only produces these in the effort to get back to its resting homeostatic equilibrium - ie. its design speed - at which the internal momentum asymmetry driving it goes to zero.

A Bessler wheel only wants to rid itself of the internal +/- G-time asymmetry, and will accelerate or decelerate, producing effectively reactionless torque and work / energy, in seeking the 'punctum quietus' of I/O G-time symmetry and time-constant net momentum.

A coasting Bessler wheel is gaining no momentum or energy over rolling dissipation losses. It's in an elevated energy state, in apparent defiance of 2LoT, out of thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment, yet in perfect equilibrium with gravity, time, N1 and N3, re. the time-conservation of momentum.

Reconciling these properties - as opposed to the ready-but-mistaken presumption that an OU wheel simply accelerates up to whatever speed at which frictional losses (squaring as they do with velocity) consume all of the gains - puts the spotlight on the fundamentals.

Clean blackboard - wipe everything off: we have inertial interactions, and gravitational ones. All other possible mechanics or actions are just variations on these two fundamental classes of interaction. N1 and N3 omit closed-system momentum changes. G-time symmetry also; the difference between a pendulum and kiiker is I/O G-time symmetry, the momentum gain a direct function of the period delta times gravity. In a closed system, we're not gaining momentum from anywhere else. But we need to fix the unit energy cost of that momentum, plus inevitable dissipation losses (as to the inelastic collisions used to consolidate and accumulate the per-cycle momentum delta), so we're looking for an interaction which dissipates at least 50% (probably more) of all input energy each cycle.. again, the focus should not be on 'buying rotational KE' but on buying increments of momentum - basically farming it, as an initial investment (ie. sustaining the associated dissipative losses) that bears fruit beyond some threshold of accumulated velocity.

We're looking for discount input energy, not excess output energy; specifically, fixing the unit energy cost of momentum, such that ie. doubling it only costs double the internal work done + dissipative losses; because rotational KE squares in the external / absolute frame, so there's always some threshold RPM below which net of KE + losses is less than net input PE, and above which, over. Angular inertia is RPM-invariant, for example - 1 kg-m² is always 1 kg-m², regardless of whatever your current velocity.. hence a 1 kg-m²-rad/s acceleration might always cost ½ J, per RKE=½Iw².. suppose you were also willing to waste 75% of all input energy on collisions, too, so for each ½ J of momentum gained we also throw away another 1.5 J to the four winds.. yet do the maths, and you reach PE:KE unity at the fourth cycle and 125% at the fifth..

The Toys page holds the keys.. item A is an impulse sequence about axis B; the 60° fork atop A is asymmetric to vertical, implying not one but two angles: 45° to the right and 15° to the left (or CW vs CCW) - a 3:1 ratio.. a ratio of interacting angular inertias that would also dissipate 75% of input energy per-cycle, with a 25% per cycle efficiency accumulator resulting in PE:KE unity at four cycles and 125% at the fifth.. "5. Something extraordinary.."

However the two hammer toys might also be consistent with a single input impulse being dissipated in two successive inelastic collisions between equal inertias (each hammer in a pair), in which case the first would dissipate 50% of all input energy, with the subsequent one dissipating a further 50% of whatever remained, hence 75% of all input energy per cycle dissipated, with only 25% actually buying any net momentum-velocity.

The Toys page is obviously an exercise in logical elegance and efficiency, a trans-cultural communique on par with the Pioneer plaque or Aricebo message, and won't include contradictory information, hence i doubt this 45° / 15° angle atop item A is actually referring to a 3:1 MoI ratio.. since the hammer toys seem to implicate two successive collisions between MoI's in a 1:1 ratio, both sets of calcs summing to the same 125% after 5 cycles, yet one or other obviously redundant / misconstrued... so what is that 60° angle with a 15° offset signifying, then? Sorry for the diversion, but this has been doing my head in all week..

The Toys page is indicating an angular interaction cycle encompassing two inelastic collisions, probably between equal interacting MoI's / inertias, with twice as much of something - some principle component of vis viva - going CW compared to CCW. But do the notches on B align to 180° increments of its rotation.. or perhaps say 45° CW then 15° CCW? IE. if not relative MoI's, maybe relative displacements? Dunno.. as ever, the challenge is to plot out these vying hypotheses in back-of-envelope calcs to see which ones best match the various clues and likelihoods of being mechanisable.. but before one can 'mechanise the maths', one needs a mathematical solution: 1+1 can't equal 3, so one needs to grasp the implicit mechanics by which input inertial FoR's can diverge from the external / absolute metrics enumerating KE: starting with a system at rest in the lab FoR - and thus at energy unity - some sequence of internal actions take place in which the metrics by which 'velocity' are measured are decoupled, the input workload effectively residing in a rest frame that is oblivious (or at least somewhat agnostic) of RPM in the external frame. This means it's probably not principally work done against CF force (as in kiiking), since that squares with RPM, just as the output KE does. Again, though, an angular inertia workload might fit here, as a shoe-in for an RPM-invariant CoP.. but still, the ultimate source of any momentum gain it embodies has to be gravity and time, and all else being equal, in a rotating frame G-time is inversely proportional to RPM - at twice the speed the weight spends half as long under gravity's constant acceleration each cycle, thus gaining half as much momentum, yet for the same input GPE / GMH.. Obviously, in having a preset design speed, B's wheels embrace RPM-dependent +/- G-time / momentum yields, rather than trying to circumvent it - the faster they turn, the less momentum they gain each cycle.. yet the less input work they somehow pay for it - it's not necessarily getting any cheaper, they're just buying less of it at higher RPM, the unit-energy cost of momentum basically flat across their designed RPM range.. the ultimate irony, that the wheel is not trying to buy momentum, so much as trying not to - a Bessler wheel is motivated by the impetus to cease gaining momentum, a state it can only achieve in dynamic, homeostatic equilibrium, that design RPM at which I/O G-periods are near-symmetrical over entropic losses, and net momentum thus constant.. but below that speed, net G-time per cycle is positive, and above it, negative. Input cost is always positive and dissipative, but in a divergent (anomalously-accelerated, without inertial interaction with the environment) reference frame, hence speed-invariant, with the available free energy being equal to the half-square of the 'velocity' component of the accumulated reactionless momentum delta.

Think of the mooted low-speed / high power wheel.. test all your hypotheses against that, as the benchmark for useful progress..

[preoccupied]

I have to write a 5000 word paper on my wheel. I think that I'll start by describing why it's impossible to create a perpetual motion machine. Like many attempts to find a perpetual motion machine have been made by trying to shift weights at just the right time to achieve overbalance. This falls in the face of equivalency on both sides of the axle. It typically doesn't work very well. Trying to lift a weight past where it falls is also impossible. There is no leverage that can lift a weight past where it falls. This falls in the face of equivalency of forces going up and down. I don't know why my idea is any better than other perpetual motion machine attempts but it's different. When I saw MT24 the thing that struck me is that there was movement in and out of the center and the center wasn't revealed...

...It immediately came to mind that the connection to the center moving in and out could pull and release a spring. A helical coil spring connected to a pulley could stretch as the levers open on the bottom of the wheel and release when the levers close on the top of the wheel, and if the wheel is moving fast enough will apply force to the left side of the wheel when the levers close and the weights impact the wheel. I think that my idea is different from the impossible perpetual motions machines I mentioned because I transfer some force of gravity on the right side of the wheel and release it on the left side of the wheel using a helical coil spring. It's like trying to balance an equation by subtracting value from the right side of the equal sign and adding it to the left side of the equal sign instead of adding or subtracting the same amount from both sides of the equal sign. It breaks the rules of math therefore it might break the rules of perpetual motion machines being impossible...

...I think that the wheel will produce the force of constant retracting springs. Or at its most efficient the force of constant falling weights that are about the same weight as the strength of the spring. Not the force of weights falling straight down but the force of the two weights on levers. I think that because the weights are suspended on levers that it's about equal to the force of one falling weight over and over again at the wheel's most efficient design. Something that this design does is store weight in a spring. A spring doesn't collect mass when it stores energy. So weight can be stored in a spring as energy and lifted to any height without changing the weight needing to be lifted. We often ask on Bessler's Wheel how can we lift 4 with 1? Store three weights energies in a spring. The spring doesn't change its mass or weight when it stores energy. This also means that springs can assist in motion without external force propulsion. An engine can propel itself by spinning weights and it can also propel itself by contracting springs and spinning weights. This property of springs is overlooked because no one has found Bessler's wheel. But this is the secret to Bessler's wheel. I am the only wheel designer that will work right now. All others coming after me will take advantage of this property of springs that a spring does not gain mass when it stores energy...

[Fletcher]

"All others coming after me will take advantage of this property of springs that a spring does not gain mass when it stores energy..."

P. .. you need to tell Ken Behrendt, and Kerry Waenga, who both used springs in your manner in their wheels. And also thought springs didn't gain any mass but just stored and released elastic energy ;7)

@ MrV .. yep, basically agree with most of what you said, personally. Tho if I want to keep the energy source within the known frames of physics and mechanics then I tend to a momentum exchange explanation with the earth platform, rather than N1 or N3 breaks per se.

[preoccupied]

"All others coming after me will take advantage of this property of springs that a spring does not gain mass when it stores energy..."

P. .. you need to tell Ken Behrendt, and Kerry Waenga, who both used springs in your manner in their wheels. And also thought springs didn't gain any mass but just stored and released elastic energy ;7)

@ MrV .. yep, basically agree with most of what you said, personally. Tho if I want to keep the energy source within the known frames of physics and mechanics then I tend to a momentum exchange explanation with the earth platform, rather than N1 or N3 breaks per se.

What were Ken Behrendt and Kerry Waenga designs for wheels? Did they believe springs didn't gain mass but just stored and released elastic energy but overlooked how simple it was to apply it to MT25 or MT24? Did their wheels work too?

[preoccupied]

I have to write a 5000 word paper on my wheel. I think that I'll start by describing why it's impossible to create a perpetual motion machine. Like many attempts to find a perpetual motion machine have been made by trying to shift weights at just the right time to achieve overbalance. This falls in the face of equivalency on both sides of the axle. It typically doesn't work very well. Trying to lift a weight past where it falls is also impossible. There is no leverage that can lift a weight past where it falls. This falls in the face of equivalency of forces going up and down. I don't know why my idea is any better than other perpetual motion machine attempts but it's different. When I saw MT24 the thing that struck me is that there was movement in and out of the center and the center wasn't revealed......It immediately came to mind that the connection to the center moving in and out could pull and release a spring. A helical coil tension spring can replace the connection to the center and stretch at the bottom of the wheel when the levers open and compress its tension when the levers close on the top of the wheel, and if the wheel is moving fast enough will apply force to the left side of the wheel when the levers close and the weights impact the wheel with the extra force of the springs. I think that my idea is different from the impossible perpetual motions machines I mentioned because I transfer some force of gravity on the right side of the wheel and release it on the left side of the wheel using a helical coil tension spring. It's like trying to balance an equation by subtracting value from the right side of the equal sign and adding it to the left side of the equal sign instead of adding or subtracting the same amount from both sides of the equal sign. It breaks the rules of math therefore it might break the rules of perpetual motion machines being impossible......I think that the wheel will produce the force of constant retracting springs. Or at its most efficient the force of constant falling weights that are about the same weight as the strength of the spring. Not the force of weights falling straight down but the force of the two weights on levers. I think that because the weights are suspended on levers that it's about equal to the force of one falling weight over and over again at the wheel's most efficient design like a stream of water. Something that this design does is store weight in a spring. A spring doesn't collect mass when it stores energy. So weight can be stored in a spring as energy and lifted to any height without changing the weight needing to be lifted. We often ask on Bessler's Wheel how can we lift 4 with 1? Store three weights energies in a spring. The spring doesn't change its mass or weight when it stores energy. The levers stretch a spring on the bottom of the wheel and the spring is lifted all of the way up the wheel without gaining any extra weight from storing this energy. This also means that springs can possibly assist in motion without external force propulsion. An engine can propel itself by spinning weights and it can also propel itself by contracting springs and spinning weights. This property of springs is overlooked because no one has found Bessler's wheel. But this is the secret to Bessler's wheel. I am the only wheel designer that will work right now. All others coming after me will take advantage of this property of springs that a spring does not gain mass when it stores energy. I think that if spring energy is stored near the bottom of a wheel and is lifted a significant distance before releasing its tension that more designs like this might be possible... ...I think that my design has more potential because it comes directly from one of Bessler's original drawings MT24 or MT25 (they are basically the same drawing). Bessler's wheel ran for 54 days straight locked in a room. I think that if I've found Bessler's wheel then it is already a design that has worked before in the past and doesn't have any nasty side effects like time traveling or exploding if it works...

743 words so far

[preoccupied]

I'm out. I don't think it will work.

There are positives and negatives either way you go. IMO it is pointless patenting without a working physical model.

If you do patent it and it works, you will not be able to afford the legal bills fighting corporations who might like to copy it. They only have to change a small percentage of its appearance and/or operation and your patent will mean nothing.

Open source will probably mean you don't get anything, perhaps some recognition (again, once a physical model is proven and replicated).

Good luck!

Kaine.

I think that you know that my wheel will work. You just don't think that I will make any money on it. I think that the best way to enforce my patent is to put the government in charge of it. I want Congress to make taxes and fees related to the use of my design. If the IRS and the police are issuing taxes and fines for the use of my wheel I think that I would automatically be given the most money possible. I'm going to give you a big internet hug Tarsier79 and maybe you'll change your mind. *HUG*... Now maybe you will add a tension spring to one of your existing builds and prove that I'm right in a mere few days. I really want a working model built as soon as possible. I don't care who builds it. I think that we can all be billionaires. You could become a billionaire for helping me. Can you dream of it?