Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy

[daxwc]

What I want to understand is the exact instant the flail touches the stop what the RBGS will do. It is going to instantly see a different MOI it should slow up very hard. Added with the counter torque you wouldn’t think this is good news but it also has more leverage instantly.

Wonder if we design it inside out Fletcher… RBSG on the outer ring Rack and pinion a lever arm (no weighted flail) ; then the RBSG will try to speed up on flail contact.

[Fletcher]

Open to all ideas dax - I am not set in concrete - the thing is to progress further in understanding we need either sim or real world models to test against.

As I said earlier, this is my current favourite approach to a possible solution for a self sustaining Motion Wheel.

In all my time on this board I have not seen one idea that attempts to identify or explain a potential symmetry break in the physics laws, nor offer a potential mechanical arrangement - Mr Vibrator looked promising & pequaide probably came closest until he insisted that MOI was mr even though Tarsier demonstrated with p's apparatus that mr was wrong.

And I am completely over the ground hog posts of I'll provide explanations, diagrams & proof when I have it working, or what about this OOB design ?

Unless someone makes a breakthrough in deciphering Bessler's writings & drawings into a meaningful mechanism to discuss, or produces an actual machine to study, then I am satisfied that I have given it a good shot & I'll move onto other things that don't require so much "overthinking".

Perhaps one day someone will look back on this thread with the benefit of hindsight having seen the actual solution & think there was something here worthwhile.

[daxwc]

Question Fletcher, if you add a motor to the RBGS in a sim and compare power outage to spin the RBGS with different arm positions (no slider), does it take exactly the same power to start and stop it.

[ovyyus]

Thanks for sharing your idea Fletcher, I'm intrigued to see where it might lead. Never underestimate the power of 'overthinking' ;-^)

[Fletcher]

Question Fletcher, if you add a motor to the RBGS in a sim and compare power outage to spin the RBGS with different arm positions [not horizontal, 45 degrees, 90 degrees etc] (no slider), does it take exactly the same power to start and stop it.

Monitoring motor power in WM may not be accurate, & there is no need anyway - just make a pendulum with stator, then gears on the shaft - the beam can be set at any angle you want - it can be any length you want - the period will be identical i.e. the MOI is identical.

I don't even need to sim it, although I have previously - it is easy enough to visualize.

Take two positions on the RBGS pendulum - say one is the gear to which the beam is attached - its radius will never change & be constant distance from the pivot/COR.

The second position could be some point at the end of the beam for example - it prescribes a circle around position one - position two itself does not keep a constant radius around the pivot/COR - you will see the shape it makes is also circular about a displaced virtual pivot/COR.

[Fletcher]

Thanks for sharing your idea Fletcher, I'm intrigued to see where it might lead. Never underestimate the power of 'overthinking' ;-^)

Hope it leads somewhere too Bill, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time.

Overthinking & relaxing tropical climes really don't mix that well ;7)

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

Monitoring motor power in WM may not be accurate, & there is no need anyway - just make a pendulum with stator, then gears on the shaft - the beam can be set at any angle you want - it can be any length you want - the period will be identical i.e. the MOI is identical.

Just wondering if you ever got one really rotating if there was stress lockup, friction or something you missed that would drain energy. Hard to tell playing with it.

Anyway good job Fletcher and thanks for sharing it, explaining it and putting up with me till I got up to speed.

[daxwc]

I have four furnace fan pulleys in the garage that I can clamp two together for the stator then belt it and get a bigger model. Some ball bearing shelf sliders for the weights and see what forces are there. Might have time next week, not home this week.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher:

Just wondering if you ever got one really rotating if there was stress lockup, friction or something you missed that would drain energy. Hard to tell playing with it.

Anyway good job Fletcher and thanks for sharing it, explaining it and putting up with me till I got up to speed.

You are welcome dax - I hope following the steps opened new thoughts for you, & perhaps 'things Bessler' that I mentioned have new significance.

Look forward to your independent findings & perhaps you can add to what I came up with, or disprove it - I never resolved whether WM was constrained to COE override, but at times I suspected it was, which is why it is important to think thru the steps for yourself i.e. self analyse as best you can.

[triplock]

Fletcher

Overall, I cannot detract from the way you put your case. It was well considered and thought out.

But I stand by my comment that there was 'over thinking' on your part, which you seemed to take offence to by repeating that term in a negative context. I believe that such indepth analysis should take place post-production because to do before does blinker without you knowing it.

I do like your adaptation of the RB whereby CF from the maintained horizontal mass is commuted to the rim, but it is a one shot system. There is no doubt in my mind. There will be insufficient energy in the tank to complete the cycle, even though the RB isn't resisting. In simple terms it is a small circle laterally moving within a larger circle. Centripetal Force like Centrifugal Force is a one way ticket to hell. Their very existence limits their existance .

It's a shame that I can't fully jump in and comment further as to do so would jeopardize other things. Therefore I have to accept that I might come across as stupid, with you have to repeat yourself 'ground hog' fashion !

With respect

Chris

[Fletcher]

That's fine Chris - but there is a basic disconnect between us on what's happening & my repeating myself in different ways won't fix that.

It's not a one-shot wonder at all - the RBGS & the background wheel with rim stops are perfectly weight balanced at all times - exactly like a flywheel.

I take Cpf & we redirect it - if you want some numbers I can run a few hypotheticals - let's say a 2kg rack at radius 1 meter has velocity of 5m/s - Cpf = mv^2/r in Newtons - i.e. Cpf = 50 N's - let's say the rack moves for argument sake 10cm (0.1m), so work done is the integral of that force times distance - let's say 5J's.

OK, now let's say the gear ratio from the rack movement to the pinion & flail is 1:10 - therefore the flail wheel weight will move 1.0m with a force of 5N's (N.B. 5J's).

But that is all a side show & pretty much irrelevant - because the system is weight balanced then I ultimately create a CW torque at the rim I believe, while the flail is in contact with the rim stop, after which they disengage & the wheel rotates (coasts in force balance) - at around 6 o'cl the rack resets to the left again & stands up the flail - this is what I think will happen.

So, it is a concept of Roberval Balance force imbalance & not weight imbalance as ordinary Roberval balance systems are that try to lift mass (weight force) & not transfer force as my concept attempts to do.

...................

dax raised the question of when the work in out was the same where could there be an advantage & I pointed to the RBGS being more than a torque equalizing mechanism but also a MOI mitigating mechanism which meant that force transferred to the rim was no harder to rotate than if it were applied closer in.

ETA: the rack moves outwards 10cm usually has a MOI penality - not in this case, IMO, as I explained.

..................

I've put it out there, I've given my interpretation of some of Besslers drawings & words, what will be will be - my job is done !

...................

I still look forward to reading your thread with your explanations.

I obviously approach the problem differently from you - I look for an angle & think about it as much as I can, before I commit to drawings & sim builds if the show stopper is not self evident by then - usually I don't even get to sim anything.

Anyway, best of luck & no offence taken - the groundhog comment was about my general dissatisfaction with the secrecy & delusion that fills this board daily.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

thank you for putting your ideas forward here, it is always interesting and thought promoting, I do think you are on the wrong track though, wherein I see CF as a handicap for most designs, I am well impressed with Besslers wheel RPM and to me that says his design was simple and CF was a governor.

The spin off from this sort of thread is it get people minds going down many avenues as people try to figure out what you are up too. It has given me some good thoughts on how to revamp some of my old gravity wheels, of which I will put forward when I have time to play with them.

In short every ones a winner with this sort of thread.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

dax raised the question of when the work in out was the same where could there be an advantage

No, my intention was not of an advantage, but disadvantage, it was one requiring more energy to spin faster and faster entirely because you moved the rack out 10 cm compared to two weights fixed on a wheel. If you change MOI suddenly and the RBGS doesn’t feel it maybe the energy is getting stored somewhere before release. Relax I usually learn something from stupid questions 8P




Fletcher:

Perhaps one day someone will look back on this thread with the benefit of hindsight having seen the actual solution & think there was something here worthwhile.

Don’t worry Fletcher if the design involves the RBGS and I stumbled on a solution, your name will be accredited too as well any real monetary gain; I don’t leave my children in the street.

Anyway, best of luck & no offence taken - the groundhog comment was about my general dissatisfaction with the secrecy & delusion that fills this board daily.

I don’t try to groundhog on purpose, but there is no use throwing out a hundred designs when the principle is still in question, it is not really about secrecy on this issue. On my own designs and speculation, well it took you 17 pages to get us up to speed and in the right direction while losing 80% of the people where the advantage is. If any speculation is involved usually you get shot down before page 5 no matter how much body of evidence you have. That and a lot of speculation is wrong anyway even my own, but people should at least hear it out and try to understand rather than grab the Uzi and shoot a couple hundred holes into something you don’t understand.

[Fletcher]

It's all supposed to be impossible dax, right ? The math that supports the physics leaves no known loophole to allow a gravity only wheel.

Yet, if we take Bessler's words as genuine then he did invent a true PMM - he says weights gained force from their own motion - we know his wheels had rim stop boards at right angles to the rim, & that there were flails - witnesses said they heard weights contacting these boards - Bessler said in earlier wheels he covered the contact areas with felt to muffle the noise, in later wheels he dispensed with the felt - witnesses also said they heard scratching noises etc - we know that if his was a KE impact wheel in its entirety then using felt etc would severely lessen the KE transfer, that & the fact that there is no material that gives an elasticity of 100% - wood is about 50% - so you lose an awful lot of energy from impacts - Bessler also said his wheel turned thru imbalance, he called it excess impetus, excess weight, & preponderance.

My thoughts are similar to yours - people who parachute in to say an idea won't work with no thoughtful reasoning to support their position carry little weight with me - plenty of those because it requires no effort - the people I listen to more closely are the ones that take the time to analyse others designs on a regular basis & actually understand it - I know something of their analytical ability - the ones that do that & have a good knowledge of 'things Bessler' as well I take more seriously again.

That's because ATEOTD physics & the math expressions that describe it can't give us an answer because it is literally impossible - believers without evidence or understanding can't give us an answer because they can not describe it - the man who can think in both worlds is most likely to be able to solve the evidential trail & present the solution credibly, IMO.

[triplock]

Fletcher,

I believe that Bessler did indeed accomplish what I would call 'extended motion'. The term Perpetual Motion comes with too much baggage, and, by its own definition, is impossible on all levels. Does that motion utilise CF ? No, I don't think so in all honesty. It acted as an uninvited governor at most.

From my own findings, I do not believe that EM goes against current conservation of energy laws . You are merely increasing the efficiency and use of available energy by making mechanisms react to engineered circumstance. Because we know for sure what reactions to expect within an environment, we can use that to our advantage.

Furthermore we can negate what is counter productive by creating a mechanical action in our favour at the point of keel. It is the hunting for force equilibrium that creates rotation. It is the very existence of the Conservation Laws that drive the device. If you can't beat them, you must join them.

The answer lies in a place that we all have looked, but have over looked as it were because most are constrained by belief and expectation of outcome. It is not a single action or one mechanism that creates this small window of opportunity, rather the fine tuning of over-lapping elements. Bessler, rather unhelpfully, referred to wind, fire or whatever he was prattling on about.

Weights are indeed an essential part, but they are a means to an end. They allow the mechanism to be influenced by gravity as and when required to create that excess force spoken of. Without that excess force, then nothing is possible. Saying that, it, as a whole, should be classed as a motion wheel.

Once the arrangement and interplay is known, it is pre-determinable how much torque is produced. High torque / low Rpm, or Low Torque / High RPM. The ratios of 3:1, 4:1, 5:1 etc do mean something and do relate to output required. It is all quite calculable.

Moreover, in another area altogether, it is indeed possible to fling a 1kg weight upwards by the smaller fall of a 10g weight if the circumstance is in place. This can be done without exhausting or diminishing system PE.

Also, rather annoyingly, it is possible to have a 1kg weight either side of a fulcrum, acting in perfect balance, and to remove one of the weights and still maintain equilibrium.

Finally, am I a parachutist with little or no understanding ? No, not really.

I see myself as more of a rock falling at free fall speed and landing in a big muddy puddle (whilst spraying bullets from an Uzi ?! ) Thanks for that disturbing analogy Daxwc.

Chris