Grease power

[preoccupied]

In this drawing the red levers work together to shift the blue lever. The lines have a spring on them that is 1/4th the power to lift up the weight so the bottom red lever and the bottom left red lever hang a total of 0.35 distance combined from their axles. I mean to say each of those levers is 0.175 distance from their axles. That's because it should be lifted the top weight from a 45 degree angle which is 0.7 distance from its axle. I could be off on my visualization but I think that's right. If so then after the red weight falls flat there on the top right it would be a wheel 1 distance lever overbalance on the wheel which will turn into 0.35 distance counter torque before another red lever drops.

[preoccupied]

I explored how weights could shift if they were on a conveyor belt. I used the shape that I think was in Bessler's 5 billion dollar diary that I think I bought when I was a kid which is the circle with two boxes around it. I found that if these weights shift and all of the weights are the same weight that the wheel will be balanced when shifted. But I know that the weight can be heavier that is being lifted because it's being lifted at a 45 degree angle. So I made the weights being lifted heavier and I calculated it to be overbalanced when shifted. I think it's promising, you guys should study it! With both wheels working together it might work better too. So I consider this a design that would utilize both wheels that I drew. In which the top and bottom shift weights and the far left and right shift weights. I didn't draw this but the weights could shift on the top left and bottom right and bottom right and top left but I'm not sure how that would turn out yet. Surely if it is shifting into an overbalanced position at the top left bottom left and top right bottom right too it would be continuously overbalanced.

[SHADOW]

Bonjour Preoccupied,
A quoi sert le cercle?
Vous devriez dessinner la course de chaque poids sur les carrés indépendement de l'ensemble: le carré avec ses deux poids et les limites de déplacement de ceci, le losange idem.
Y a t'il possibilité de passage des poids du carré au losange?
Utilisez des couleurs differentes si possible pour les différentes figures pour êtres plus explicite.
Vous avez peut être vu quelque chose que je n'arrive pas à distinguer!

Hello Preoccupied,
What is the circle for?
You should draw the stroke of each weight on the squares independently of the set: the square with its two weights and the displacement limits of this, the diamond ditto.
Is there a possibility of changing the weights from square to diamond?
Use different colors if possible for the different figures to be more explicit.
You may have seen something I can’t distinguish!

[preoccupied]

In the diary I think the circle was just to fit the squares evenly, or to help draw the squares. But I didn't always think this, of course I had all of those ramp ideas earlier.

The two weights fall straight down and pull the diagonal weights up at a 45 degree angle. Then on the opposite side of the wheel it does it again because its orientation is completely flipped. Any position on the wheel can do this so there can be 4 wheels like this in one direction like a CCW Wheel. The two wheels I drew after the weights shift, it is balanced if the weights have all the same weight amount. But if the lifted weights are heavier it will be overbalanced. So what might need to be done is partially turn one of these wheels and place it between the reload point of the other wheel so that they can take turns reaching their reload point for optimal performance. But there is also the positions I haven't drawn yet, if those have the same overbalance effect if the lifted weights are heavier then a lot of weights could be overbalanced between the different reload positions in their turns. I haven't drawn or measured the top left and bottom right or the top right and bottom left weights shifting yet.

Anything specific that I missed?

[preoccupied]

The top left and bottom right boxes can shift too and the top right and bottom left boxes can shift too. I can have boxes with enough distance between them such that four boxes can be between the 45 degree positions in which the boxes shift. So I can make a new drawing later in which there are 32 boxes and they shift in 8 spots around the wheel.

The green numbers are if the weights being lifted weigh 1.2.

[preoccupied]

I think the efficiency increases if there is smaller boxes further apart from each other because it gives more time for the weights to shift. My concern with efficiency is that the weights might not shift all of the way with a slight bit of motion and if it were to work okay it would need some space to shift the weights quickly enough into position. I'm kicking the bucket down the road for this design in that I don't have good enough geometry or trig in my mind to measure all of the distances when I turn the wheel into different positions and I can't calculate it in motion either. What I can say that I've found is that after the weights shift if the lifted weights are heavier because they can be lifted on a 45 degree angle that it is overbalanced after the shift happens. But I don't know if it is impeded a lot before the shifting happens that stops the wheel from working, but I think conservation of energy would try to do that.

There might be more combinations for pushing weights along conveyors like this. But laid out here in my recent posts is the concept that when weights are paired up along a square that they can move weights on another square 45 degrees apart from each other and if the lifted weight is heavier it will make a wheel overbalanced after the weights shift. But if all of the weights were the same amount it would shift and be balanced. One of the clues from Bessler that this wheel does not do is line up weights one against the other. So maybe if the square rotated also some of the weights would be right next to each other. If the falling weights or driving weights also rotate their box in 45 degrees it would line up two of the weights and this would add to the overbalance. If it can rotate back in time to lift the weights again that would be an added overbalance. Perhaps if it does this it won't shift exactly on opposite sides of the wheel. This would be a new drawing if I make this drawing.

[preoccupied]

If I wanted to lift a weight straight up it would be on the opposite side on the bottom also. So in order to lift up a weight straight up I need two weights, one that is lifted from the bottom to the center and one that is lifted from the center to the upper position. In this drawing I can lift a heavy 4x weight upwards and one on the bottom to the center because I have boxes on conveyors that fall together to lift this in the image or drawing actually. The boxes partially balance each other and this makes it overbalanced with the heavy 4x weights being lifted every 45 degrees. Four boxes fall at once. and when they fall they fall evenly downward and the weights that fall are balanced with their opposite side too. Is that a trick? If the weights that fall to drive up weights are balanced on the opposite side of the axle does that make a difference? Or am I distracted by this trait for some reason right now. Okay so it is overbalanced after it shifts and before it shifts it is the same balance because the weights fall straight down when lifting and driving the weights up. This is overbalanced and it's not shifting in a way that changes the balance when it shifts the weights. Because the weights fall straight down in squares when it is shifting the weights. I am of course following what I understand from Bessler's diary, the only thing I remember after all of this time, which is the boxes 45 degrees apart. I do believe but I can't prove right now that I had a bank and I spent 5 billion dollars on Bessler's diary when I was a little boy. This is EXCITING. My heart is pumping hard. The weights stay in a consistent position when it drives new weights up and it is overbalanced. Because the weights fall straight down in a box to lift a weight straight up and down that is heavier. The weights are balanced with their opposite side when they fall and they are no more or less balanced when they shift as when they finish shifting in the box. THIS IS OVERBALANCED.

Sincerely, Jon Perry

[preoccupied]

Because a descending weight loses torque, I now prefer this variation of my design today. What this is doing is the right boxes that are dropping weights have a spring pulling with them and on the left the weights are falling against the spring. So it's a little less than 4x weights being lifted but it is a practical more amount of weight being able to be shifted because now all 8 weights participate in lifting the two weights being lifted straight up. So on the right there is four weights plus four springs pulling down and on the left there is four weights pulling the spring apart. This should shift more smoothly because the springs and the weight ascending will assist lifting the 4x weights. And actually now that I think about it I might be able to if the wheel is in motion be able to lift greater than 4x weights because the ascending side is driving the weights up. A calculation I can't make precisely right now but I can presume perhaps I can get a little over 4x if the spring is fast and the ascending weights fall harder into their positions because the wheel is moving. This might be what he meant by the weights gain force form their own swinging, because the swinging 4x weights that keep the wheel overbalance gain a little force allowing them to possibly be heavier than 4x. Thank you to the discussion in MT51 comment enquiry ? topic in which they were talking about this dynamic basically.

[preoccupied]

I remeasured my previous drawings and found them to be balanced after the weights shift. In this drawing I lift some weights on the ascending side in light green color. Lifting the green weights in the middle of the ascension on the right side of the wheel saves the counterbalance they would have on the bottom and bottom right if it had fully dropped on the left side of the wheel. And that is precisely where the overbalance comes from in this picture.

[preoccupied]

I've pondered today on if the boxes would work better if they rolled along a track. If the box rolls towards the rim of the wheel it will slow down, BUT does that also mean that is has more torque on its weights to lift something? I think it does because it will slow down and be pushed against by the wheel moving at the same time. So more weight can be pushed upwards if the driving force is the box rolling towards the rim to produce lifting power. At the same time on the opposite side of the wheel which will have less or no lifting power it will pull towards the center of the wheel. So the bottom half would be full of weights near the center and the top half will be full of weights near the rim and the balance doesn't change until the two box sets roll near the horizontal plane that lets them to move. How about that? How much force do I gain from rolling the boxes towards the rim to lift another weights straight up? An interesting set of mechanical devices would need to be invented to have a rolling gear on a track also drive up a weight into position. It could also cause something to smack something else on the wheel. I Mean as it rolls it will roll harder and faster because it slows down angularly and builds up force as the wheel pushes into it so it will roll harder and harder and could smack something on the wheel with its force.

[preoccupied]

Not any of you showed interest in this design type last time I posted it.

I have in this drawing the weights swinging between two points. There are two weights in each location and one set of weights around the wheel just do the lifting and the other move out of balance. The top left weight that does the lifting falls as the wheel ascends for it. It pushes the weight out on the top right by pulley. This is out of some of my first interpretations of how Bessler might have done his wheel and yes it was based on the swastika shape. But Bessler didn't draw a swastika in his diary he drew the two squares and a circle in the center but the circle might have just been there to help draw the other square diamond shaped square. When I was a kid I drew the squares looking for the solution and I drew lines all over the place looking for clues and found a device that can amplify power with extra gears but this is not likely Bessler's idea but my idea that I found on my own. More likely is that this design is Bessler's wheel and that it's an overbalanced wheel that Bessler found. If you take the concept that he says weights are swinging and you take that in the diary that I had that the squares were important, the weights in this drawing I made are swinging and the ascending side is driving the side being lifted and it makes more sense that if this works that it would be the design Bessler likely had.

I don't know what I'm doing. I haven't reeducated myself properly since my last concussion in 2009 in which I think someone fed me gasoline. And I was assaulted between 2004-2009 by people close to me. I just haven't been on top of getting better really. This is more of a preoccupation. I'm curious. I know that I had interest in this when I was a little kid and I was VERY SMART then. All I'm doing is embarrassing myself by trying at something I am not very good at. And I'm okay with that right now.

[preoccupied]

The triangle position on the belt for the spring is offset to the right 100 pixels and up 400 along the center. This gives a 14 degree cos 14 is 97% efficient or 33.33x reduction on the belt to the wheel. I am gearing the weights to shift 4x the distance the spring moves. So the orange weights shift 4x as far as the spring. I will set the spring strength at 6 weights giving it some extra push to make sure things run smoothly. The spring pushes the other wheels mechanisms pushing the weight in horizontally and other weight upwards. So it's about 6 units of spring force reduced by /33 or 0.18 weight force pushing against 4x distance the spring moves wheel. Which should make this 18x4=72 total resistance from the spring and there will actually be two springs going at this at once so 144 resistance. The distance the weight shifts is 400 because it's gear 4x distance more than spring moves and the spring moves about 100. The weight driving it is sitting at 45 degree angle so I multiply 400 by 45(sin) and that's 400*0.7=280. 280-144= about 136 distance weight force that is overbalanced. There is some friction against the belt about 6 weight force and there are two springs actually needed so 12 weight force against the belt in friction which might be reduced by like roller bearings or something. I keep saying two springs are needed and actually the weights shift every 45 degrees and the spring is shifting 90 degrees. Two springs working at once in the full model.

Somehow a spring on a beltline pushes another wheels mechanisms shifting their weights. Mechanically move the springs back to be moved along the conveyor again by some kind of clockwork.

[preoccupied]

I think I fudged explaining how I calculated in my previous description. I mean to say I explained badly then.

The conveyor belt is connected to the wheel on the right which moves by weights. The wheel with weights on it has a radius of 400. Minus the friction the spring pushes against the belt around the circle path, this conveyor belt should get minimal torque from the spring because of its angle. It starts off with 14 degree angle against it and gradually pushes towards 0 degrees. 14(cos)=97% efficient. The remainder 3 is divided from 100 so 100/3=33.33 which is the amount of proportion the force reduced from the spring push into the conveyor that effects the wheel that moves the conveyor on the right. If spring is 10 weight force then 10/33.33=0.3. 0.3 weight force pushes into the wheel with weights on it. Then the radius of the wheel driving the belt is 400. 0.3 times 400=120. The weights overbalanced must then exceed 120 weight force and the friction of ten weight force against the belt.

I had said I made the spring 6 units of force. That gave me 6/33=0.18. That is multiplied by 400, the radius of the driving wheel on the belt. 0.18*400=72. Then I also said there are two springs that need to be compressed because the weights shift 45 degrees turn and the spring 90 turn. 72*2=144. There is about 144 resistance. The spring moves the other mechanism weights leaving one 45 degrees offset CW to the right at a 400 length lever, which is 280 distance from the axle. 280-144= 139 unit weight force overbalanced. Then there is 12 units of force friction against the belt because two weights 2*6=12.

I will add that increasing the distance the weights shift will increase the leverage. If the weights shift 33x distance it will be about 3300 distance levers. The units resistance would be 400 because 1 units force from belt against conveyor to move the wheel with weights on it and the torque would be 1910 then. That's 3300 at 45 degrees or 2310 (the offset weight) and minus the 400 (resistance) to be 1910. And there would be 66 units of force in friction on the belt from both combined spring. This is still a lot of friction but more torque. I don't know if even with very efficient roller bearings if the force of the spring won't just wedge the operation of this wheel to a halt.

[preoccupied]

On the left side of the wheel the blue weights fall, the wheel is descending there, and it shifts a weightless green weights that are weightless because they are connected to move together with their opposite side- the blue weights are connected to the green weights, blue connection is 90 degrees to the green connection behind it CCW. Straight up and down the green weights are weightless. In the picture I think that it's also weightless at 45 degrees but I see my mistake now.

In the balancing act that the green weights are doing approaching the very top and bottom positions, it's the weight pointed into the axle that is heavy because the weights off to one side are counter balancing each other. So it gets pretty narrow as it approaches the top and bottom positions on the weight pointed towards the axle. I think that a big difference of weight could be used to shift the green weights by the blue weights. I dare say 1 weight could lift 4 weight within reasonable amount of time for the wheel to operate smoothly. There could be any amount of weight difference if it moved into the top and bottom position and waited there for the weights to shift like clockwork. It might be able to roll into such position and work like clockwork but a smooth moving wheel would need an earlier start on the weights shifting so maybe I dare say 4 and 1 weight amounts might move it smoothly. Dare I say it's 4 weights moved by 1 weight amount? Dare I say that because it's Bessler's clue?

[preoccupied]

I corrected the flaws in my previous drawing. The purple weights remain weightless around the entire wheel. The purple weights shift because of the pink weights. A light spring assists in moving the pink weights while the pink weights are weightless and their connecting purple weights are weightless. I think these weights become weightless because they try to lift their opposite right angle set of weights in the opposite direction. The orientation allows for the weights moving in unison to shift in the same direction on the inside of the wheel for the pink weights on the left and right but otherwise the opposite opposing weights counterbalance each other making them weightless and unless I've made a mistake this should work.