I want to take a moment to lecture you on the dangers of using gravity for energy. Pulling gravity out of the Earth cools the core of the planet, which is otherwise spending its extra heat to produce gravity. Gravity is created by heat in the core of the planet, a core which is constantly getting hotter and spending its heat to create gravity. Two things can mess up the core of the planet, geothermal extraction of heat and defeating gravity mechanically with wheels or other mechanics unnaturally and perpetually. Using gravity wheels is equivalent to digging deep into the Earth and pulling up heat from under the Earth to do work above the surface of the crust. It will destroy the electromagnetic field and cause the planet To be bombarded with radiation from the sun killing all life on Earth if done in excess. Both geothermal extraction of heart damages the core and gravity wheels will too if used in excess. We shouldn't really be tampering with the cores temperature as much as we are doing with geothermal extraction. But gravity wheels would really put excessive strain on the core of the planet. Only so much heat is produced from the pressure of gravity itself on the materials in the core. There should be very minimal the assumed nuclear heat in the core. Almost all heat come from gravity itself putting pressure on things and heat taken from the crust by the sun. Heat from above the crust enters the crust and into the core because of this simple principle. The heat in solids move in all directions evenly with higher concentrations then in the center of a sphere because of conic shapes that make up a sphere from its surface. This higher concentration of heat causes magna to form and then the colder magma falls into the center because in liquids or air mediums the colder elements clump together and become heavier and fall under the medium and this should create a semi solid core of the planet. Crust heated into molten magma into semi solid core because of thermal conductivity heat from the sun and gravitational pressure on materials. Nuclear decay does not heat the core. Every bit of heat we take form the core will upset this balanced from either geothermal extraction or gravity wheels.
This is a drawing of my concept that had a working test of concept before with the pulleys arranged such that they shouldn't contradict each other.
When you guys started talking about pulleys in another thread I wondered if you remembered me mentioning that Archimedes my time travel duplicate played with over unity pulleys. https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 49#p207349
I don't remember his work Archimedes by time travel duplicate memories that absorb into me in a white light a few years after a duplication but my memory has improved on some things recently so maybe this is it.
EDIT it's possible I miscalculated the pulley but the concept is that the string moves extra by having multiple block and tackle joints. If it's 18x and not 729x and it moves 6 times then it moves x6 total units of distance faster than 18x or the 18x would move a third of the speed pulled by the person potentially instead of /18th.
Last edited by preoccupied on Tue Apr 02, 2024 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
The spring assisted method is here. A string pulls a pulley pulls on a gear that turns the wheel and another gear is also pulled by the string which is geared into a 2:1 gear that uses a spring back into the same wheel and at a MA because the 2:1 starts off as an attached smaller gear to the gear that the pulley is stringed to. A device can be stringed back to an identical device to add multiple Free spring power together. Where does the energy come from? Entropy of the spring probably. The physical properties of the spring are being spent to do this work. If an atom can hold energy that can cause an explosion perhaps entropy of a spring can be a free source of energy. Also, while this is very neat if it works, it is nothing compared to my enhanced DC Battery power that I invented in 2004 which I shared with a girl who became a country music singer. As soon as I make any perpetual motion machine relevant she could destroy all its marketability by sharing a far more interesting electrical concept that I invented then.
Sincerely, Jon Perry
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
A weighted lever assists these weights to rise on one side and fall on the other (I THINK). Per my analysis earlier in the other thread. Image below.
This is a new and interesting observation about mechanics that I think I newly invented. I've been coining different things but I think I will let it be named after whatever trait people want me to be famous for. My name. Whatever.
EDIT
This is how the picture is supposed to look I think. I changed the right gear trains because I drew the lines wrong on my original attempt to draw this. The purpose of the gear train is to slow the descent of the T shaped lever. Did I draw it correctly?
Sincerely, Jon Perry
Last edited by preoccupied on Mon Apr 08, 2024 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
I made a mistake on my picture that I posted before. The string was placed on the wrong side of the wheel so this was easy to fix. The gear train needed to turn CCW. So lets be clear on what this does. The small gear turns naturally and the large gear attached to it has pressure on it by the string but does not turn as fast as it wants to go. Do you require movement in order to have a lever work together in on a gear block? Or can the pressure applied be forceful but slower than it wants to be by a rope grinding against it at a pressure (friction). This was the basis of Grease power idea too. I thought that there could be power in wedging into things and causing friction. But instead of using grease to make it more efficient, in this design you want there to be friction a grind sufficient to move the levers possibly but it grinds into the gears giving force without moving the gear as fast as it would want to go. If you don't move a gear through space like the planar aspect of everything we interact with, can you still apply force based on its lever that is if you have a gear block where the small gear is dominant and the large gear has a pulley grinding against it? The green pulley in the picture will grind against its gear block and the blue pulley will move with the gear block. There is force being applied by both pulleys that tug on the wheel but the momentum in space is different per force aspect for gears if this works.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
1. Learn a sim program like Algodoo and start simulating your ideas to see if there is any possibility of a "sim-world" advantage, as per your hypothesis - if so, share it with others to stress-test the the model and see if the advantage continues ..
2. Build an actual "real-world" model of your hypothetical gear train and pulley system, to see if a real advantage exits that can be termed OU or MA x SR > 1.0 .. ( there are different names for the same things ) ..
In my experience both in sim-world and real-world experiments both are subject to the 'Law of Levers' i.e. MA x SR is a strict ratio of inputs to outputs that does not exceed 1.0 .. And .. the "Work Energy Equivalence Principle" ( or "Work Energy Equivalence" ) allows the swapping in and out of force x distance ratios for energy Joules i.e. they are interchangeable ..
I know I have said this to you previously - you are a smart guy - you can learn the program if you persevere with it - many here can help you learn it .. we all had to learn at some time and it took effort and dedication to get on top of it ..
As a thought experiment if the two gear trains weren't connected by a belt like I have drawn it's possible that pulley attached to large part of the gear block would slide unevenly past what it is lifting. If they, the gear train, are connected then the pulley suspending the weight for the string connected to the large part of the gear block would spin independently from the pulley suspending the weight connected to the small part of the gear block. This available rotation power would be felt by the large part of the gear block by its own pulley connected to the suspension of the weight and should pull on the gear block with a force. So basically where the weight is suspended there are a two frictionless pulleys potentially and on the gear block there is two maximum friction connections on a gear block. When there is pressure from the pulley connected to the large part of the gear block it will continuously tug on it at a different rate of attempted speed force. It would be in fact an attempted speed force. Is there such a thing? Or does that force only exist when there is actual momentum? When I press against the floor to move, the force that breaks the dirt on the ground before I move, as that part of my momentum before I move? If so then the forces on the large part of the gear block should be force that can move the system. Because in actuality if you actually required movement to translate a force then you would not have this idea working because there is no movement just forces when it's sitting static there. The potential movement or movement potential is in the pulley attached to the suspending weight that wants to move with no friction and the available space is the gear block being larger on one gear instead of the other. I imagine myself pulling with my hands on the pulley and pulling harder with one arm than the other to see if it would help in my imagination and I think it does. I think that if I pull harder on the pulley connected to the large part of the gear block harder that it would be more effective in my mind as if there is a tangible movement that I am pressing against when it's very limited in actuality. It's all forces not tangible movements, It's all connected. It's possible it will get stuck but it's possible it will take the supposed movement potential and do work. I don't think a simulation will be able to accommodate this idea because it's a new concept that not even machine learning can understand.
My funds are extremely limited even though I'm supposed to own a quadrillion dollar trust I think in which I am out of contact with. Producing one gear block and two pulleys and two wheels they connect to would be how I would be able to test if this idea would work.
edit
If because the gear trains are connected and the forces don't split, I think a solution would be to change the direction of one of the gear trains so that both gear trains move in the same direction. So if both gear trains are moving in the same direction if two forces applied force, one would have an easier time than the other and this could be used to lift two separate mechanisms with the force differential. But then I guess having a gear train assist in lifting weights could be done individually. Like a very large single gear by means of gear train could slightly assist the lifting of a weight on one wheel while on another wheel connected to it it falls the same amount of weight. Because what is happening here lets face it, I'm trying to suspend a weight opposing to the lifting side to assist in lifting the weights by large gear train to make it reasonable but I'm using a gear block to split up the advantages between the driving and driven forces. You could just put the large gear train opposing the lifted weights and the assisting weight would slowly fall as the weights lift at a normal rate on the wheel. If you slowly assist a wheel with two equal sets of weights the power output should be equal to the strength of the suspended assisting weight. If you use the gear block idea here to do that same thing I think the power would be equal to twice the weights in motion because the gear block has 2:1 ratio. Or it's based on the suspended weight like it would if it were a weight suspended without the gear block. If it's based on the weight assisting by being suspended then distributing that weight 2:1 would allow you to lift potentially extra weight instead of an equal amount of weight from the moving weights on wheels. Then if the extra weight lifted could lift the suspended weight back up to its original position it would be a perpetual motion machine. I think that this design would work at splitting up the force and doubling a half of the force. So it would (x+2x)/2=y. Which is similar to the power output on my spring assist idea if that would work. Isn't that just 1.5x=y? I supposed you would need the equation variations for different gear block set ups. So I would be trying to break the laws of levers, to get 1.5x out of the suspended weight.
Last edited by preoccupied on Tue Apr 09, 2024 10:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
The pulley needs string available to let it turn while it unravels so I needed to adjust the design as shown. The weighted T shaped lever is supposed to have (x+2x)/2=y power or 1.5x power. The green string does fall slightly further down but it's a T shaped lever, it won't consistently fall the same speed at all angles I don't think and it might even be falling slower than 1.5x. Or maybe it is in fact even exchange of distance and speed and I just found an INTERESTING new lever!
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
Because the gear block is set to 2:1 ratio in my picture when the string falls it will fall twice the length of the lever or 1/0.5=2 and the MA would be (2x+x)/2=1.5. If the weights were separated they could be lifted up individually like in the picture and this means it would cost 3 distance of movement to lift all of the weights back up and MA was 1.5 but the weights are in fact halves so it's even. If it were 1:3 ratio it would fall 1.51 times length of lever fall which means that 3x the distance fell than the blue line moved and that means 4 whole units of weight have to be lifted and the MA would be (3x+1x)/2=2, so it's even. If it were 5:1 ratio it would be 5 distance fall. at 1:5 ratio the MA would be 5x+x/2=3, a loss of 3 because 6 units of weight need to be lifted that are halves so it's 3 which is even. It's all even.
Here is a simple design that I drew in MS Paint today. The weights shift using pulleys and they shift out of place a good 0.6 length because a 45 degree angle is 0.7 of its flat counterpart. It should at least have some overbalanced as the heavier weight is less than 0.6 more than the lighter weight. It should be minimally heavier and it should still shift, since everything in the wheel is supposed to be proportional. When the wheel is turning fast enough the bottom weight will reach its position late and slam against the side of the wheel on the way down. If this were Bessler's wheel that would explain the banging noise.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
I want to draw attention in my thread here about what I have been talking about elsewhere in the forum, that it's possible that randomly swinging weights on an oscillating lever could drive a track that they are swinging on, by first driving a heavy flywheel that then drives a track. The weight swings back and forth and up and down and whichever direction the oscillating levers changes direction to or continues in the same direction at, in both directions it moves it would turn the heavy flywheel in one direction. By probability it might be able to run perpetually if its track gradually moves also with the heavy flywheel.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
The big image with the four drawings in it is the step by step instructions laid out in German in my diary of Johann Bessler's in how to draw one of his wheels. The single drawing is colored so it's easy to see the pulleys. I paid 5 billion dollars for this diary when I was a kid, and I don't know where it is and I'm out of contact with my trust which I think should have had a little over a quadrillion dollars USD in it, the largest private US bank in the world which widely participated in international franchises and the music industry, among other things I guess. I hope you appreciate me because I'm lucky to be alive. I have encountered numerous head injuries from being assaulted. This design and the knowledge that it's dangerous to kill the entire planet if it's used for energy in excess could have been lost with me dying or becoming brain dead by now.
Sincerely, Jon Perry
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
I added this green pulley which will pull the top weigh to the right without changing how the wheel works. It's so smooth guys. What do you think? Any comments? I guess I never knew the exact design but I must be getting closer. The octagon in a circle was in Bessler's diary I think. So this should be very close to his wheel design, if it's not it I would be surprised because this is so smooth. There could be a smoother design design though similar to this. I don't think so but keep it in mind.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
My explanation for where the weights are balanced and overbalanced for this drawing is following: Because of the shifting of the extra weights at the top the heavy weights will be balanced when shifted. Because you shift the lighter weight, it will be bottom heavy on the wheel, in which the bottom right light weight is upright compared to its opposite left weight down on its side. I need to look at it again to clarify. It's bottom heavy by 1.7 but it loses 0.7 on the top making the wheel overbalanced by 1 of the light weight full shifts. I ran out of duct tape for my build today otherwise I would have finished or at least been able to do more tests. I did get the weights to shift by manipulating the pulley but it shifted too easy with my weight choices I need to downsize it or figure out more about the pulley to determine the weights. I might be able to shift the weights with very minimal difference in weight, if any. Wouldn't it be funny of the weights shifted and they were all the same weight amount? Because the pulley position is definitely relevant. For example, lifting a weight on a lever by its head with weight down further down on the lever some of the weight is displaced on the lever. And actually I wasn't able to move the pulley at all with the driving weight with the pulley attached to the tip of the lever. I thought you might find that interesting. Need more duct tape.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
I was right about the pulleys. When I have time I need to reset up my pulley positions because I need more room for my levers, because I was right about the levers too and when I build this wheel it should work however it would work better with cylindrical weights because of the extra green strings. Cylindrical weights would give everything clear space to move and would eliminate most wear and tear. What I was right about the levers is, if you place the pulley string on the tip of the lever it is easier to lift and you can lift it with the other lever string placed behind the weight and it will lift because of some kind of pulley dynamic the same amount of weight the same distance high, which doesn't do some special magical energy bonus but would allow this wheel design to work because the design would work because of the shifting and swinging weights moving into out of balance positions naturally by their locations of their levers. SO as you can see in the design the driving weight which is actually not heavier at all, only heavier in lifting power because of the pulley string location, and it will all be over balanced, all of those weights and the lifted weight that shifts by being lifted it will be overbalanced by a good whole lever distance. Wheel actually has a balanced point but the momentum would always push past it because it has got a good lever distance torque when from the weights shifting. And the balance point is like one point on the path. It is the last point on the path and so actually this design has no counter torque only a balance point at the very end of the swing. So in summary after all that I've said here, this will work because placing the pulley string at the tip of the lever and the other one at the behind the weight on the lever will allow one to lift the other the same distance it falls. Since apparently the weight being held by the levers tip offsets the weight onto the lever making it lighter to lift. I can build this wheel but I won't do a good job at it. I need to hot glue gun some rivets on to some poster board to create a new lever location then I can duct tape some string to some pennies and see how much I can get it to rotate but because I am not using cylindrical weights I will have excessive friction and because my model that I have started is very very small I have errors in my measurements that will be drastically big to the balance of the wheel. Maybe one of you more adept builders can build this successfully before me. If you are interested in making history. Your prototype that hits first in time frame of me inventing this design will probably be worth a fortune as a collectable as will mine as the inventor if I ever make one successfully which I might take my sweet time in doing because I am not good at constructing these wheel attempts right now. Good day to you sirs. I hope you enjoyed my Bessler wheel, possibly the Bessler wheel, as I had insight into his design from his diary that I spent 5 billion dollars on when I had my banking trust as a kid that I am out of contact with because of my limited resources and I don't know how to look it up on my own.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
In this exciting over balanced wheel design the weights should shift because of the position on the string on the lever. The string is attached to the top of the lever on the weight being lifted or shifted and behind the weight on the lever that is driving the weights. In one picture there is a heavier weight being lifted because a spring is assisting the lever that is driving the weights. As you can se it would be continuously overbalanced if the spring assists this driving action. The spring can be some amount less than the strength of the weight falling and that amount can be added to the heavier weights difference.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
This is the concept, I had in mind in 1998 if not earlier. The swastika sits on the z axis and reloads position on its side, is geared to turn with wheel proportionally.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
