Perpetual Motion Suggestion

[kenfree]

Hi Everyone,
I am quite new to this site. I have been following the discussions for quite some time and thought of putting forward a suggeston. maybe it has been discussed before. Please bare with me if so. I have been going through several sites by John Collins ( Much apprecieation for his emense contribution and work towards this subject). And have learned quite a lot.
With every study I get more and more convinved that bessler's wheel was not contradicting science but rather satisfying science laws and we need to follow the same course if we are to achieve perpetual motion. I do have a theorotical idea but this may help us achieve perpetual motion in practice. I have been in this caurse for years now and believe am close to the goal.
I do believe it has to do with making a mechanism whereby some weights cause force in one direction and others of similar number and mass causing the opposite force. i.e. while one set of weights causes upward/anticlockwise force the other set causes downward/clockwise force. In a way most of bessler's diagrams proved that any attempt to cause overbalancing by making weights go further from the axis of rotation while descending and closer to the axis while ascending has always failed when used alone as some 'hidden' force always existed to counter the overbalancing effect. I therefore tend to think he gave up trying to eliminate one of the forces but rather found a way of separating the two forces so that each weight used either was supporting the move or opposing the move. If this is achieved, then one set of weights is neutralised such as letting them fall on some support thus reducing one of the forces and creating permanent imbalance on the wheel. This may have been done by causing the countering weights to hang then rest on the floor/periphery of the wheel as the wheel turns. When they rest, they are neutralised. The force availlable to turn the wheel will then be the force neutralised when the weights rested. This satisfies science as trying to play with the motion of weights only is always bound to fail as it breaks science laws.
If this is take as true, then I think one has to find a way of making one set of weights move closer to the fulcrum, while ascending and further away while descending. At the same time the same mechanism causes some other set of weights to contradict this force. This is scientifically sound and is achievable. I tend to think Bessler's secret lies in how he managed to implement this.
The contradicting weights should then be hanging so that as the wheel turns, some of them hit the lower side of the periphery and rest on some support, leaving the wheel under the influence of the overbalancing weights.( and a few of the opposing weights).
How to achieve this is what I think is the answer.
This is just a thought so far... Maybe it could offer some useful tips.

Thanks

[bluesgtr44]

I think this is a good idea, but the bugger is in the set up. How can this be achieved physically....just what is that arrangement?


Steve

[DrWhat]

I agree with you kenfree, my view is that gravity needs to act on one side of the wheel, and the interaction of other forces negates (or cancels out) the force of gravity on the other side of the wheel.

The trick is (as Steve said) to develop the mechanics to do this, if this is the answer.

It doesn't defy the laws of physics since we are simply removing a negating force allowing for a positive force to prevail on one side of the wheel.

The form, the form, the form of the device, that is the holy grail.

Cheers,

Damian

[greendoor]

Dumb idea which I haven't draw on paper yet and may live to regret ...

How about a wheel divided into three compartments of 120 degrees. Insert into this wheel four horizontal crossbars with pairs of balanced weights (sliding through holes in the axle).

The idea being that we play with the difference between 120 degrees compartment and 180 degrees beams. Within the compartments we have movable segments that are free to move a little within the compartments. This is very much based on the MIT drawing where Bessler says "and still you don't understand?".

I am thinking that as the wheel turns, the balanced weighted beams are forced to always rest on one compartment (therefore experiencing Normal force), and be unsupported on the other side. This induces a torque imbalance - but in turning, the segments themselves fall down, causing the Normal force to disappear and then switch sides.

I haven't thought this through properly ... act in haste, repent at leisure sort of thing ... but the basic idea presented by kenfree has really got me thinking ...

[bluesgtr44]

I messed around with the concept of trying to get a weighted swinging arm to lie on a peg on the ascending side after it had finished it's swing. The position on that peg was to distribute the weight outward and actually provide a small bit of upward push on the main wheel. I thought about this while reading about Jim's CF idea on the weights swinging. Like most applications for this endeavor....the timing was just a real nightmare.

I never followed through on the concept because I just didn't believe it would ever be enough to maintain any kind of rotation. If it swings too far over it would fall back down onto the peg too hard. If I gave it enough tension at the joint to stop it from swinging to high up, I lost too much of my CF contribution and it would want to ride the peg too early. It also made the joint too tight to provide any real upward impetus when it did ride on the peg. I figured I'd just wait and see how Jim's worked out...;-)


Steve

[kenfree]

Hi guys, I am back from a long silence. Sorry I had to 'dissapeear' for some time.I have been quite occupied by trying to finish an experimental prototype to display a mechanism and principle which I view as key to achieving perpetual motion.
Well, The prototype is working perfectly as expected. I am planning for the complete building of the device as it requires so much precision when building the constituent parts and is quite costly. The device is obviously different from Bessler's device based upon the descriptions given. It is possible though, the principles may be the same. I am willing to disclose the details to anyone interested privately after taking the necessary measures to prevent disclosure.
I have however dedicated a separate site to discuss the main steps which will result into perpetual motion in detail. My aim is to remove the mystery behind perpetual motion because I tend to think the mystery has been blown out of proportion and this has further complicated things. By this I do hope to create a more acceptable atmosphere for such an invention if presented by anyone because from the current backdrop of scams and controversy surrounding perpetual motion, it is very hard to front a working prototype and get the required acceptance and support to nurture the invention into an industrial product.
I would invite all who are interested to join me at www.eric-esere.blogspot.com

Regards

[broli]

Your blog url is misdirecting because of the dot at the end.

I am willing to disclose the details to anyone interested privately after taking the necessary measures to prevent disclosure.

Isn't that contradiction, you will disclose after making sure you don't disclose?

But I think you will regret making your last post, you either come all out or you remain hidden until you can come all out whether you chose to patent or open source. You only come partially out if you chose to do neither and don't care about the consequences of the device. In this field and especially on this forum there are no "friends" it's all about me's, so chose your steps carefully.

[ovyyus]

...on this forum there are no "friends" it's all about me's...

Broli, I think that might say more about you than it does about everyone on the forum :D

Good luck with your project Kenfree.

[kenfree]

Thanks Ovyyus.
Broli has a point though, but I thought about it before I made my last post. So as to make progress, sometimes it is necessary to take some risk.
There is no way to control who reads what you have placed on this forum. you are bound to get all types of people- obviously not all will be of support.But the good thing is that you never lack those who have good intentions and it is to those that it is worth the risk.
I would take this opportunity also to clarify that I don't intend to disclose the details of my invention publicly but to whoever we can partner in taking the invention to the next level of development. The principle and device has a local patent of more than ten years. All this time it has not been easy to advance it due to the shear skepticism and unbelief met along the way. This is why I believe that coming all out on this will not be helpful. Even if I were to present a video of a working prototype on this forum, I doubt if it would help. The level of prove required is bound to over expose the invention-something which is not advisable until the invention is an industrial product. The road to development still requires privacy even if a patent is issued.
The option then is to discuss some of the principles by which perpetual motion can be achieved publicly. The discussion will expose some of the common errors people have made in trying to get perpetual motion in the past and clearly show how it can be achieved without breaking the scientific laws. I will not go into the detail description of the invention but if in the process someone else is able to knit the threads together and come up with one......well, that's the risk-But I pray the person will have the courtesy not to forget me:-)
Obviously, from over ten years of work and sacrifice on the invention, I am interested in gaining from the invention monetary, but I don't mind sharing with anyone who decides to take the journey with me. If you help me slaughter a bull, you definitely are entitled to a share of the meat!
I chose to do it on a different blog because I wanted to base the whole blog to the principles which I will be discussing and not to the general topic of perpetual motion.
I believe those discussed in my blog are not the only principles of achieving perpetual motion- but at least they represent some which work.
In the long run, I hope more people would believe in perpetual motion and embrace the idea as it may be the solution to the climatic and energy problems we are facing globally.

[ovyyus]

Kenfree, I like your optimism.

I have one question: What is the energy source that drives your perpetual motion?

[kenfree]

The energy source that drives my perpetual motion is gravity. It is harnessed by the help of stagnant water. The main principle of operation is however not necessarily dependent on the water, but on anything that can provide the same function that the water plays.
It is possible to eliminate water in later stages of development.

[winkle]

stagnant water

or anything that can provide the same function that the water plays

are you saying it runs on stink

[kenfree]

The machine runs on gravity which acts on eight or more weights to enable complete rotation. Water is also used but it does not drive the machine directly. It can be replaced. I have dedicated a separate blog for this at
www.eric-esere.blogspot.com

[neptune]

@kenfree. I am sorry old chap, but I am totally at a loss to understand where you are coming from. Without being rude, hopefully, I really cannot see what you hope to achieve by coming here. If you have a working device, what do you need us for? You say you have a proof of cocept device, and the only thing standing between you and building a working machine is money. That is like me giving you next Saturdays lottery numbers, and you saying it is of no help, because you dont have £1 to buy a ticket.
If the truth of the matter is that you are 99% there[ like 1000 others], and you need help with the remaining 1%, just say so. But, tell me something. How can we help to improve something if we dont know what it is?
On your blog, you say that you will gradually release some of the results of your experiments. In the third world, People are "gradually" dying for want of free energy. Why not NOW? PM research needs another mystery like a hole in the head. You have a Patent? so why not spill the beans and lets get on. Some of us are too old to play waiting games. So come on old boy , how about it. I personally do not need to make money from PM. If you have what you claim, it would be impossible for you to fail to make money. These are my thoughts. What are yours?

[graham]

Hey Neptune, spoken like a true Brit, and I concur with your sentiments.
By the way , my Grandfather hailed from Boston Lincolnshire . His name was Fred Pinchbeck, never met him ,he died before I was born.

Graham