Grease power

[preoccupied]

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 51#p207751

My drawing could have extra swastikas. If you have a swastika every 45 degrees then you could rotate the swastika a little faster perhaps, if you want to rotate it 90 degrees every time a new swastika is in location horizontally across. So 4 swastikas would want to have proportional movement and would this work? I don't know. But 8 swastikas would be 2:1 to the wheel at least. And 16 swastikas would be 4:1 with the wheel at least. This would allow the swastika to make a quarter turn on the z axis by the time the next swastika is in place to do the same. Or the swastikas could turn proportionally to the wheel and then several swastikas would be turning on their side instead of mostly being moved while on their side. So if you have 16 swastikas and it's 4:1 that's like turning 8 swastikas on their side with the turn of 1 overbalanced swastika or 16 with 2 overbalanced swastikas actually which it is. The x y axis is balanced. So the z axis is just moving the z axis's and most of what is being moved is laying on a slant. If you had 8 swastikas then at a 2:1 ratio, two swastikas being moved would be at about a 45 degree angle and one completely flat, about that. 2 is greater than 1.4. So it should work. Because at a slant it is 0.7 times 2 of them or 1.4. And the 2:1 is actually 4 because it is overbalanced by about 2 lever distance. So 4 is greater than 1.4. If my math doesn't make sense then it doesn't matter. It's not like I can build a prototype unless I get my banking trust back. I have no resources. I will not benefit from this.

EDIT
Now that I think about it a swastika turns an 1/8th overbalanced and not a quarter. So 8 swastikas would turn at 1:1 ratio but be 2 lever distance overbalanced for most of the turn.

[preoccupied]

I created a wedge lever that will push two wheels the same distance. It starts mechanically even but after an initial start it will turn with more advantage on one side until reaching the end of the 45 degree turn. It doesn't LOOK like it would have the same amount of string at the end of the turn and/or move the same distance around but IT DOES because the string falls downwards too, so as long as both wheels are level with each other it should turn the same distance.

On Bessler's clues, I followed what I knew about his diary that I spent 5 billion dollars on. The circle with two squares around it making an octagon shape is what was in Bessler's diary. So basically right angles to the axis could literally just be the corner of this square that makes up this wedge lever. And at this point I think it might be. This is Bessler's real wheel in my opinion. It can load and unload weights continuously on paper. Fletcher and others with BRAINS, you with brains. Take this and make it good. I have no foreseeable way to benefit from this or any of my other ideas. I am not giving up my rights to the idea but I just want to say that I probably could never be known for it and probably could never benefit from it and I'm dirt broke too so I have no means to do antthing about this other than being nice and sharing what I have discovered and feeling accomplished about it, that is basically the only good thing about this is the feeling of accomplishment. :) smiley face.

[preoccupied]

The lines connecting the gears should be drawn like this so it's proportional. Simple mistake I made by drawing the lines to the gears wrong in my previous post. It should start mechanically even and then have MA throughout a 45 degree turn and move both wheels the same distance.

[preoccupied]

This uses 5 weights lifted by 1 but it's on a 4:1 cycle so there is 2 weights driving for a fraction of it which will push it past the even mechanics at the beginning of the wedge lever. Why does the beginning of the wedge lever have even mechanics? Well imagine gravity pulling to the left and to the right evenly. Also, the MA gained by turning some is multiplied by 4 because of the 4:1 gear ratio so there is enough power to move the 5 weights with the one because you take 4:1 times the MA from the wedge lever part way through turn.

Sincerely,

Jon Perry

[preoccupied]

The wedge lever should start off mechanically even even though the weight is being pulled by a location within the wheel closer to the axle than the location being pulled by the string. This is because of the angle of the lever, it is a wedge. If gravity were to pull in both directions left and right it would be balanced at the start of the wedge lever. Also you can add multiple wedge levers together and they will multiply by each others MA after moving out of the balanced start, creating an explosive amount of leverage. I imagine a spring loaded weapon of some sort could be activated that could be interesting.

[preoccupied]

By the way the two wheels have to be parallel. This was implied already.

EDIT

It appears that it only gains MA if they are separated but then the string is too long because the path gets shorter. Maybe if pendulum shortened the string length it would work but with the wheels separated but not parallel. Because if they are parallel I see that they do not gain MA.

[preoccupied]

The string could be wrapped near the axle and to the gear where it is wound as the gear turns the wheel. The string distance change is very small. A gear can wind a spring that pulls on the string that allows the MA of the wedge lever by the string distance shortening. I just have a pendulum to time the release of the string and the spring. This should be very positive because the MA is multiplied by 4 at the wedge lever and the string distance change can have huge leverage to make it happen because the change in string distance is very small. Do I make any sense?

[preoccupied]

In this the orange line pulls in with greater leverage, which is intended to make the 5x weight power spring easier to slide in. The amount of string needed to pull in by the spring is still very small but it's a little bit more than the previous example. I halved the size of the wedge requiring me to double the size of the gear. Proportionally because the the gear part that connects to the orange line was always smaller and out of proportion this greater proportion is exponentially better for pulling in the spring And any variation that makes the gear larger would do this also. So if I were to quarter the size of the wedge I would greatly increase the leverage being able to pull on the spring. This might not be necessary. The original idea might have worked the way I set it up. I'm just exploring proportions of the idea now. To put it in perspective the wedge of various sizes works because it has a 5x weight powered spring pulling the string in. Once it has a 5x weight powered spring pulling the string in the whole system gets a bonus of the MA which is where the Over unity comes from. The mechanical advantage only exists because the string length is being shortened. Someone told me that this was a hench from a crane and not a wedge that uses wheels for leverage. If that's true then it's a hench of a crane with wheels for leverage to create over unity. THE IMPORTANT PART OF THE PICTURE IS THE ORANGE LINES. The orange lines is where the string is being pulled in and a little extra string is being pulled in because it's actually being pulled by a spring to the minimum distance. So what we might have here is moving wheels and a string being pulled in on the wheel between the wheels. If that's the real trick then possibly other variations would work doing that and my wedge idea might not be entirely necessary.

I am having some difficulty thinking, counting and doing some math. I will work on that, I think I was a little better about it a while ago. At this point I don't think I can calculate this. But I will work on it.

[preoccupied]

The string being pulled in is the EXTRA task of making this wheel design work. If the string didn't need to be shortened the idea would work. So on that I noticed that with a full sized gear you can have more leverage to pull in the string (The orange lines). But you can make the gear full sized to an infinite size because you can just make the larger ring 4x larger to meet the system requirements and make the gear connecting to the wedge any size larger also. In these two drawings I have the first drawing in which the gear connecting to the wedge is the same size as the circle on the wedge. But in the next drawing I have the gear connecting to the wedge twice as large as the circle on the wedge. And actually it can be ANY SIZE LARGER. I can have infinite leverage to wind the spring if given enough space for the gear to sit. So what I have here is a spring that can be easily moved no matter how tough it is and a MA system that needs only the spring to be 5x stronger than the weight to keep the system moving. For systems requiring more Over Unity such as to produce electricity or carry a heavier load extra you would just make the spring stronger to hold the load and some kind of MA system such as this wedge lever I have but maybe a better one that I haven't designed yet. This is possibly just a hench of a crane using a MA system such as wheels to produce leverage. An example of something with stronger MA would be if the wedge were tighter such as if it used a larger wheel and were connected at a shaper angle against that wheel. My wedge lever is also a hench lever.

[preoccupied]

I have a wheel here that would be able to have over twice over unity on its weights. The wedge starts at 22.5 degrees. So it looks like it is 92% efficient. If that's true then I could be looking at 12.5x power just with my wedge. I only need to support a spring of 5x weights but I could increase it to 10x weight spring to support a load of over unity of 5x weights. Then I have a spring that can support 10x but it is lifting 5x weights, so I can add an extra load of 5x weights to produce electricity or carry a load.

[preoccupied]

If I increase the speed of the wedge I have to increase the sizes/therefore the speed of the descending weights also. This changes nothing in the form of leverage but I do get to increase the lever sizes that I can wind the spring with. This is what I was trying to do a few posts ago in which I thought that if I keep the the gear proportional I can increase its size. I actually have to speed up the wedge in order to do that. If I speed up the wedge I also speed up the descending weight proportionally. So I doubled the wedge speed and doubled my wheels on the right in the drawings to increase the descending weights speed proportionally this doubled the size of that gear, which doubles the leverage I can pull in the spring with.

At this point the image with the wedge trading positions every 22.5 degrees is super OVER UNITY. It is 92% efficient. By that I mean 92% of the force is mitigated. 12.5x power. So if I can bring in the spring to 12.5 power by modifying the gear size on the right I can haver 10x-12.5 load capacity. Which for this design would be 5-7.5 weights worth of extra Over Unity force.

Am I the only one seeing this? I am open to suggestions to improve my design. I look forward to your commentary. I actually crave it a little. I feel like I've come across something special.

EDIT
Actually I'm not sure about my math calculation. "92% efficient" I said. I am having some difficulty thinking. Someone check my math? It's the angle that it's being pulled at.

[preoccupied]

Some notes: My pictures don't give justice to this idea. The wedge is unnecessarily large. It doesn't have to be a larger wheel. The spring was just meant to make it run more smoothly, it's also unnecessary. The fact of the matter is is that there is ample leverage because of the gear ratio such that you can manipulate it to be larger to make pulling in the string more feasible. What I can't engineer is the catch or timing mechanism to release the string because I'm that stupid. But This idea is 100% viable. Turning the wedge at a sharp enough angle and having a large enough gear size under the 4:1 gear ratio is an entirely feasible Bessler Wheel and also you guys are not giving it any attention also.

The gear sizes under the 4:1 gear ratio can get larger because you can try to make the wedge faster thereby forcing you to keep your gear ratio of weights the same by increasing the gear size. This is the best overbalanced wheel that I've seen so far and it's my invention.

Sincerely, Jon Perry

[preoccupied]

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 29#p208129

I posted there an idea and I will say it's very similar to my swastika overbalanced wheels with the free swinging weights but it uses a right angle to tip the weight over and a spring to pull it back into place.

[preoccupied]

I had said before what if Bessler meant something like weights apply force at right angles of the ramp. Or right angles for the axis of a ramp. If he meant that this is the wheel I think he would have meant to describe and it's like my previous ones like it. This drawing shows that at the top because of the right angle it wants to turn CCW, but my modification to this design now is that the box twists. This keeps the weights balanced except for the out of balanced weight that rolls into place at the top.

Please take a close look at my picture. I'm willing to collaborate with people about this idea. If you have any improvements please let me know.

The boxes have a range of motion of 45 degree turn. It falls with the weight in the corner of the box and then it rotates back because of a spring when there is no or little load while the weight is on the ramp rolling in its center. There should be a clean 45 degrees of overbalance maybe a little more. So 8 box ramps would work for an overbalanced wheel maybe.

I want to be better friends with somebody, if you think that I have something interesting and want to talk about it with me directly, I have a little bit of space in my inbox left. I do not think overbalanced wheels are pseudoscience. I am a real time traveler by time machine when I was a young boy and I have had my fair share of experience of over unity before my concussions.

[preoccupied]

On X app I posted my picture and I said that it turns back into place by the string by accident when I meant spring. So actually a string would work fine too in this drawing. Maybe this is even easier to see what I'm trying to do in this drawing. Do you think so?

When I was drawing the boxes I put box location over box location before deleting the parts that didn't need to be there and I noticed that the boxes drawing over each other make up the octagon shape I remember from Bessler's diary that I owned, in which I spent 5 billion dollars on the diary when I had my trust as a kid. The octagon shape had the circle in it. It might have been this box and this wheel that I've designed here. But I came across this by looking into my own ideas. If I wasn't out of contact with my property I bet I would have been led right to this design. Because I have faith that whatever I find Bessler found first. And the octagon being the box in positions plus after its moved into new position drawn over each other. If this works I wonder how a two way wheel would work. I bet that I am right and this is Bessler's wheel. I will bet anything that this is Bessler's wheel. Too bad I don't have anything at the moment. But if I had my trust I could meet anybody's bet no matter what it is. This is Bessler's wheel. I'\m pretty sure. Anybody want to bet one dollar that this is Bessler's wheel? Like in the Coming to America movie. HAHA.

EDIT
Because of it's orientation the driving gear needs to be connected to the square as a reverse direction gear. So on the left I drew it it looks like it will be releasing string as it falls but the gear on the string would be moving in reverse as the square falls. I think that's right. All loose ends covered in this design.