1 idea

[Bessler_Supporter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkKXWFT2 ... annel_page





edited to add pics

[path_finder]

Dear Bessler_supporter,
Many thanks for sharing your idea.
There are so few people in this forum showing their experiments.
May I just make a single comment here: On My Opinion (may be I'm wrong) a single prime-mover, like your's, cannot work alone. It must be included in another device, in that way able to transfer it's unbalance and torque. What is important in a bike for moving, it's not the wheels, but the pedals (apart the handlebars for keeping the metastable equilibrum) activated at the right moment and phase.

Now for pulling your three cords, there is a very simple mechanism able to do that, like shown in the animation bellow (attach your cords to the three summits of the hexagon linked together to the center) . In your case, let the yellow axle fixed and rotate the rim (inversion of the animation). But don't hope to much even if the cords are correctly pulled...

[justsomeone]

Looking good Jim. Hey, what do you think of that ABHammer guy?

[primemignonite]

Bessler_Supporter, no one said it so I will,

WELCOME!

to the Discussion Board.

What an impressive and splashy, neat entry to it!

If asked to grade your conception/construction, I would
give it a solid "A" for effort! (I assume that it does not yet
go of it self.)

(Pursuit of that "interconnectedness principle" is apparent,
but in the snaps, the presence of the third arm isn't)

Clearly, out-of-the-gate deserving of "Acknowledgement",
I'd say.

Anyone else?

Regards,

James



(OK so far, James! Continue.)

[justsomeone]

Bessler-supporter, thanks for sharing. I am reminded of one of my

favorite Bessler clues. Apologia Poetica pg. 295-296, " Many would-be

Mobile-makers think if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a

little more distant from the center than others, then the thing will surely

revolve. A few years ago, I learned all about this the hard way. And the

truth of the old proverb came home to be that one has to learn through

bitter experience. "

I am a firm believer that we need to be aggressive when it comes to the

weights and attempt to get the weights CLOSE to the axle on one

side and to the perimeter on the other side.

I could be wrong. Thanks again for posting and sorry for my warped

sense of humor in the first post.

[Bessler_Supporter]

Hi Path Finder,
I thought I would show how the weight is connected to the other lever.
It goes up through the wheel and over 2 different bolts and then is attached to the lever.
I have redesigned the sockets for the weight to help make the design more efficent.

@James, no, it doesn't work. I am hopeful a 6 weighted build will work.
There are some things I have found out. It did take a while for me to understand why I was having problems. One is that by using a rope to attach the weight to another lever, there is play in the rope that needs to be accounted for. This throws off the balance more than I thought it would.

[Bessler_Supporter]

Bessler-supporter, thanks for sharing. I am reminded of one of my

favorite Bessler clues. Apologia Poetica pg. 295-296, " Many would-be

Mobile-makers think if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a

little more distant from the center than others, then the thing will surely

revolve. A few years ago, I learned all about this the hard way. And the

truth of the old proverb came home to be that one has to learn through

bitter experience. "

I am a firm believer that we need to be aggressive when it comes to the

weights and attempt to get the weights CLOSE to the axle on one

side and to the perimeter on the other side.

I could be wrong. Thanks again for posting and sorry for my warped

sense of humor in the first post.

Hi justsomeone,
It's alright. I've upset more than a few people over my work on this.
I do get into math and believe that Johann did leave a clue.
I have heard some say he kept secrets. Myself, I don't believe he did.
I'm sure you've heard the saying that goes something like you can't see the forest because of the trees ? I think that is how he disguised his clue.
I believe this is it.

The wheel I am working on is based on Mt's 24 & 25. I originally started with just the pendulum and the wheel. While waiting to start a build, Alex Clarke got me interested in Bessler's drawings.
If you look at how the weight rolls from center in the slot, it is the same as the weight on the rod in Mt 24 swinging down and the long lever dropping. It combines both motions into one, more efficient.
If you look at Mt 1 and others, he did consider round weights that rolled.

[DrWhat]

B_S, Welcome.

One thing that always bothered me is why the above pendulum is skewed, ie not symmetrical. Even allowing for reproduction errors.

Damian

[Bessler_Supporter]

Thanks Dr. What.

>>One thing that always bothered me is why the above pendulum is skewed, ie not symmetrical. <<

Damian,
If the weight were to swing upward to be level with the axle of the wheel and maintain the same distance to the axle, it would be over balanced.
If it were to swing to bottom center, it would be in it's starting position.
The basic math is the green line is @ a 30 degree angle. The blue line is @ a 45 degree angle.
30 degrees is .500 and 45 degrees is .707, both for sine and cosine. Their common value is 1/2. Could be a little math game Bessler was playing.

[Bessler_Supporter]

Looking good Jim. Hey, what do you think of that ABHammer guy?

Do you know what I would like to see ?
More people who make claims man up and post their builds openly.
One thing I have heard often is the need for others to be able to do the same build to ensure it is legitimate.
But it seems a desire to protect a patent is what the claim becomes.
The patent laws are clear on this. Only the inventor can patent an idea within one year of it being published.
This is most likely considered publication unless it is not an original build such as mine.

[AB Hammer]

Greetings BS, Jim,

Do you know what I would like to see ?
More people who make claims man up and post their builds openly.

Allot of people would like that. This of course (something for nothing) free energy

One thing I have heard often is the need for others to be able to do the same build to ensure it is legitimate.
But it seems a desire to protect a patent is what the claim becomes.

To protect ones self, you have trusted people to confirm it. Then patent it and then can show the world.

The patent laws are clear on this. Only the inventor can patent an idea within one year of it being published.
This is most likely considered publication unless it is not an original build such as mine.

I would like to see were this is in law. For I was under the understanding that you have to file a provisional patent to have a year to develop for full patent.

[Bessler_Supporter]

@All,
When watching this video, stop it immediately and then look at it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhskB-0SjKI
It has something in common with the picture Bessler drew of the wheel and the pendulum.
There is a possible way that can work. Can anyone guess at what it is ?
If not, engineering does offer a possible solution.

[Bessler_Supporter]

Thought I'd give the possible answer away.
If you look at the pic, even when an arm is at an angle of 45 degrees, it would still be 9.8 inches from center (axle to weight)which is still less than the 10 inches of the counter weight.
If you notice, the over balnced wheel @ 66 rpm has no counter balance weight.
There would be no reason to expect such a design to work. With a counter balance,
it becomes possible to have the weight that can change it's position go from over balanced to under balanced position.

[justsomeone]

Hi Jim. Sorry for being off topic but I would like you to check out the thread over at overunity.com. It is under the section... Alternate cancer
treatments. It concerns B17. Thought you might want to know.

Take care.

[Bessler_Supporter]

Greetings BS, Jim,

Do you know what I would like to see ?
More people who make claims man up and post their builds openly.

Allot of people would like that. This of course (something for nothing) free energy

One thing I have heard often is the need for others to be able to do the same build to ensure it is legitimate.
But it seems a desire to protect a patent is what the claim becomes.

To protect ones self, you have trusted people to confirm it. Then patent it and then can show the world.

The patent laws are clear on this. Only the inventor can patent an idea within one year of it being published.
This is most likely considered publication unless it is not an original build such as mine.

I would like to see were this is in law. For I was under the understanding that you have to file a provisional patent to have a year to develop for full patent.

>>I would like to see were this is in law. For I was under the understanding that you have to file a provisional patent to have a year to develop for full patent.<<

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/do ... ml#whatpat
Novelty And Non-Obviousness, Conditions For Obtaining A Patent
If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere in the world, or if it was known or used by others in this country before the date that the applicant made his/her invention, a patent cannot be obtained. If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere, or has been in public use or on sale in this country more than one year before the date on which an application for patent is filed in this country, a patent cannot be obtained.

AB Hammer, I think the USPTO is quite clear on this. This means that anyone that states I can not post my build to protect my patent rights is not being honest.
Of course, if someone makes a suggestion that is used in the design, then they are co-inventor.