We don't care the Bessler wheel, the most important is to build a working wheel...

[path_finder]

So the loop is closed...
CONCLUSION

I gave enough information for reassembling a lot of some efficient mechanisms.
Remember the suggested way to lift-up the weights by using a double cam.
The pictures:
- twin_wheels1.png
- half_radius.gif
- tripode_090.swf
must be combined with two planetaries for obtaining the 2xcamb.gif (shown on page 5).

For those loving the mechanisms (I know fletcher is one):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dR38uQN74c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aobPgGzB-U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ6ISfsQB9c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9-F5vGzuQw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIkroVwOxOs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2vRkXoTWqc


I just regret do not have seen any shot of practical realizations posted in this forum, like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N6QXJSppTY

Just a reflexion for the road:
Why Bessler (wich was clockmaker) did NOT made any pocket model of it's wheel? (It would be much more convenient for him for demonstrating).

[ectropy]

Hi AB, Oops, the date did not register. What am I to deduce from your statement? "Not very many post since 27 Nov 2008". I could make an assumption but alas, it may be incorrect. Would you like to ask me a question? I would be more than happy to oblige.

[Stewart]

Hi path_finder

Nice presentation - you've obviously put a lot of time and effort into it and you should be commended for your sharing attitude - well done. There's some interesting stuff there for those who are new to mechanics and free energy research.

Just a reflexion for the road:
Why Bessler (wich was clockmaker) did NOT made any pocket model of it's wheel? (It would be much more convenient for him for demonstrating).

Not quite a pocket model, but Bessler did make a small wheel that could be moved from table to table in 1727. I know you don't care about the Bessler wheel so I'll say no more.

Good luck with your research.
All the best
Stewart

[path_finder]

Dear Stewart,
Many thanks for your encouragement and for the answer.
Bonne journée.

Hereafter another interesting mechanism, for the moment used for ICE, but where the inner components can be used by another way. The quadrorhomb engine:
http://www.quadrorhomb.de/ (click on the start button)
see in particular the page #3 of the document accessible on the left upper corner of the front page or here:
http://www.quadrorhomb.de/qr_e.pdf
Also on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u34tPC1M16g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd-oBPpZ34E
(fletcher we be happy too)

The principe seems to be analog with this animation.

[ectropy]

Hi Pathfinder, Excellent. Allow me to present a real nutcracker scenario. We have a fixed stationary gear with, lets say 12 teeth. Irrespective of the Module or DP. Size is not important here. We have another gear of 12T which engages with the fixed gear and does one full revolution about the fixed gear`s axis. Now we know that the driven gear will rotate twice about it`s own axis when a complete revolution about the fixed gear is achieved. The quest is to obtain exactly one revolution of the driven gear about it`s own axis when one full revolution of the driven gear has been achieved about the fixed gear. Ok if a 1;1 ratio allows 2 revolutions of the driven gear then surely (I find this answer quite often) then simply increasing the driven by a factor of x2 would achieve this ie;24T. Obviously not so. The driven will rotate 1.5 times about it`s own axis when rotated one revolution about the fixed gear. Well we can have a ratio of 1: 1000`s. It is getting better, we are down to decimal points. 1:1,000,000 getting closer still. Compound gear trains? Makes everything smaller but the elusive 1 revolution is still wanting. We have now taped 10 pencils together to assist with the recordings. And with every revolution the error is increasing. Aah but alas some may say it is not achieveable.
But WTF lets go for broke and add some more spice to this scenario. Lets rotate ALL of the above about ANOTHER axis but now we have upped the ante. The driven, although it is rotating about it`s own and the fixed gear`s axis and the whole about another axis, we require that all planes projecting through the axis of the driven must remain parallel to a fixed plane which could be anywhere really. Could be on the floor, the ceiling, the wall anywhere. Lets call the driven gear a sun gear. Yes, you say but there is something(s) missing. Correct but lets get over this hurdle first. Pathfinder, you are definitely innovative, brilliant and I do so like your style. Have fun. PS. No doubt you will find that it is achievable. It is. Not trying to be a stick in the mud but crumbs did it take me 2 years to figure this out or what. Pathfinder do you see where this leading? You have posted a few animations that, if tweaked could be the above or at the very least give you (with respect) some food for thought! Next chapter (yes there is quite a bit more) whenever. 007? Dunno!

[Michael]

After March 1, 1989, an author's copyright in a work begins when it is fixed in a tangible form; neither publication nor registration is required, and a lack of a copyright notice does not place the work into the public domain.

Pathfinder I hope you understand my post was to help you if you really do want to legally retain copyright ownership rights.

WaltzCee although copyright comes into existence as soon as a work is made, proof of copright is needed in oder to secure ones legal right. Making a work public before establishing ones copyright by putting it into the public domain could entail others to use it legally and without restriction. I've worked in publishing as a graphic designer and as far as I know proof of copyright is always needed. To etablish copyright the copyright c along with the date and name of the owner needs to be placed on the work before it's handed around. You can further secure your legal copyright status by sending a copy of your work to the proper government agency or you can mail a copy to yourself and don't open it so it's time stamped but in that form the copyright can be debated.

Greendoor your points are only P.O.'s. Personal opinions. Especially points A,B,E ( which is ridiculous, proof with model is proof with model ), and F. I might be worried about someone bumping me off and if I lived in the states, and I might be worried about a possible security act placed on it. But I don't live in the states and I don't think there is too much to worry about with this type of invention. Hey, even though I desbelieve in the MEG Beardon still got his patent.

As for patents, you can easily start with your own country if an international patent is too costly. Getting a patent with the fees is a multi staged process. You don't have to pay all of it at one time, and the final cost is approximately $8000.00 there abouts for a patent inside your country.

Stewart I'd like to hear more. If you don't want to do it here how about starting a new thread?

[erick]

I have to agree with Michael RE: concerns over "getting knocked off by big oil", etc. I find this type of thinking to be rather paranoid and completely un-substantiated. I do live in the US and I have no worries about the government "coming to get me" if I ever were to create a working device especially considering the countries new found interest in "green" technologies as an engine of our future economy...

On a side note: Did anyone see the Watchmen? In the movie one of the characters, Dr. Manhatten is working on a free energy device in order to avert a WWIII. All in all a pretty good movie. A bit too mcuh dudity for me and a bit long but otherwise pretty good...

[path_finder]

Dear erick,
you are either to much young either to much naive.
see the 'excerpt from correspondence' in the following URL:
http://www.cheniere.org/misc/kawai.htm
Then ask Google on the destiny of Stan Meyer, etc. etc.
I mentionned earlier above the Ferrayé Affair.
Don't be to much confident on the laws, which are often just a smoke screen.
By the way with all your counterarguments how the GNU licenses can work?
Please stop to crystalize on the patents/copyright and let's speak 'gravitic engine'.
I will answer to ectropy within my next post (thanks for the first clever post I'm seeing since the beginning).

[Michael]

I'll probably check out the watchmen near the weekend. Heard it was good though.

[Michael]

Pathfinder doing a search on Stan Meyer is only going to give you conspiracy theories. You should do a patent search on all of the free energy machines ( perpetual motion machines ) that have been applied for. Contrary to popular belief there are a lot out there.

This is copied from wikipedia:

Lawsuit
In 1996, inventor Stanley Meyer was sued by two investors to whom he had sold dealerships, offering the right to do business in Water Fuel Cell technology. His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary, University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed.[3] According to Meyer the technology was patent pending and under investigation by the patent office, the Department of Energy and the military.[14] His "water fuel cell" was later examined by three witnesses in court who found that there "was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and that it was simply using conventional electrolysis". The court found Meyer guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered him to repay the two investors their $25,000.[3]


Meyer's death
See also: Free energy suppression
Stanley Meyer died suddenly on 21 March 1998 after dining at a restaurant. An autopsy report by the Franklin County, Ohio coroner concluded that Meyer had died of a cerebral aneurysm, but conspiracy theorists insist that he was poisoned to suppress the technology, and that oil companies and the United States government were involved in his death.[1][2][15]

[greendoor]

Let's try to stay on topic. Individuals are free to believe what they want to believe and exercise their freedom of choice. I think we've all expressed our opinions, and that's exactly all that they are. FWIW - I think most free energy inventors are their own worst enemy. Greed is an evil root ... then there is stupidity...

Many thanks to path_finder for some great examples of mechansims. Very inspiring stuff.

Frankly, I have a different approach to path_finder. "Why make it simple when you can make it complex" is very funny, but I really prefer to find the absolute simplest core of a concept. It's the essence of the working principle that i'm looking for ... all the rest are just different executions.

I honestly don't think that trying to restrain a falling mass into a specific path is going to produce free energy. The animations look good - but to make them work in practice would require them to be driven with a motor. I'm fairly certain that they would result in lockup by themselves.

As the title of this thread says - the most important part is to build a working wheel ...

So isn't it more important to focus all attention onto the basic prime-mover? IMO - if the working principle is known, then making a working wheel becomes a simple engineering exercise, and some of these excellent mechanisms may or may not be useful.

Frankly, I believe the basic principle of free energy has been given to us, and has been largely dismissed. I can only speculate about why this is the case - misdirection certainly springs to mind. Sadly, this is causing me to believe that this forum is not a safe place to discuss the real issues. It's probably time for me to let this go and move onto something else.

Thanks for the great ideas and inspiration.

[DrWhat]

"Frankly, I believe the basic principle of free energy has been given to us"

And Greendoor might I kindly ask where that basic principle is to be found?

[jim_mich]

The Basic Principle is found in Bessler's clues.

[daxwc]

Michael wrote:

I might be worried about someone bumping me off and if I lived in the states, and I might be worried about a possible security act placed on it. But I don't live in the states and I don't think there is too much to worry about with this type of invention.

I would rethink that Michael, the Canadian government is not all that interested in your rights neither. Look what they seized when they thought Hutchison had something of military value, if you know the story.

Just from Wiki on the matter:

Hutchison later accused the military of coercing the Canadian government into seizing his lab so that it could be passed on to Lockheed Martin Skunk Works for research purposes. Journalist and author Nick Cook later wrote that this had been confirmed by a high-ranking friend of his in the Skunk Works.[10] Boyd Bushman, retired Lockheed Martin senior engineer, later confirmed this in an interview in Nick Cook's book The Hunt for Zero Point.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchison_ ... son_effect

[path_finder]

Dear DrWhat,
You are pertinent. I continue to ask myself: what I have to add ? I cannot furnish the glasses. The last post of ectropy is enough explicit.

For all the readers,
If ectropy (some another pertinent person) found the key, WHY NOT YOU?
Replace the jumpers by the appropiated mechanism...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jv24jXw2YI
And then make a real experiment, like these courageous guys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRiWXbV1r5I&NR=1

I'm a little bit sad to see again that there is here more interest for how to sale the pell of the bear, instead to find and catch him.
Let's discuss that later.
You are all right with the common patents with a marginal interest.
It will be completely different with the 'gravitic engine'...