Impact is the Key

[nicbordeaux]

You're a brave man to put your head up above the parapet, Nic.

If it works I will enter a monastery.

[11Turion]

I cannot say I know Peter personally, but I have followed some of his work rather closely. Specifically his work with motors and on the Bessler wheel. I have built the modified motor he talks about how to build in the Lindemann/Lockridge Device thread at the Energetic Forum where he is very active, as have friends of mine. His "theory" has proven to be absolute fact. It has been demonstrated on the bench by a number of folks there, not in a computer simulation. I believe this to be the cutting edge of motor technology, and I am EXTREMELY happy with my results.

As to his theories on the Bessler wheel, I have not proven any of them out yet. I built according to one of his theories and it did not work. He himself has told me that he has revisedhis original thinking since then, and my new build is based on that info, which I posted previously. I believe there is good info there to be had, but I will also tell you that one of the reasons I carry all my builds through to the end, regardless of what people tell me is that I want to see for myself whether they work or not and WHY they don't. Early on in my exploration I had someone tell me that something I was trying would not work because he himself had already built it, and I found out later he had not built ANYTHING, so I take no one at their word. If they have video, maybe I'll believe. MAYBE. Will post some pictures later today.

[FunWithGravity2]

I just read the 12 page Lindemann paper about his "bessler" idea. And i must plead ignorance, i had never seen it or heard anything about him. Other than the D.sc at the top i didn't see any crazy ideas expounded. But then again the paper was all i read, i have no clue what else the guy is into. I did think that he did a good job putting "his ideas" forward.

I would be very curious to see where he has taken his learning in regards to the concepts that he has put forward in that paper. It is obvious to me at the time of his writing that he is making some incorrect assumtions about the models behaviour based upon the fact that he did not do a physical build. Turion mentioned he had changed some of his thoughts in regards to certain things an i would be curious to see whether these were hypothetical or based upon a real world exploration of what he was working on.

Other than agreeing with lindeman that the weights gain force from their own swinging i do NOT agree with any of his rules of theories on how the model will operate. I do Not believe impact is the KEY and his ideas about the CF being used twice during the swinging on the descent to create usable force are IMHO unusable.

If you are pursuing his ideas and furthering them in your own way then I applaud your efforts and your systematic approach of following it throught to the END is one of the most important aspects of this game.

Best of Luck

Lokking forward to more info,


Dave

[11Turion]

I've added a second weight to my wheel to play with. I need a minimum of three, and had to order a bunch of the small wheels I am disassembling to make my mechanism. It may take a week or so to get them, so until they come in, this is as far as I can go with my device. I can eventually put six sets of weights on the front of the wheel and six on the back. I intend to try it with just three sets on the front at first, and see if I can get it to work. If not, I will go to six, and if that still isn't enough, will add six to the back side.

http://www.youtube.com/user/11Turion?fe ... hDh5ukeD30

[rlortie]

I would be very curious to see where he has taken his learning in regards to the concepts that he has put forward in that paper. It is obvious to me at the time of his writing that he is making some incorrect assumtions about the models behaviour based upon the fact that he did not do a physical build. Turion mentioned he had changed some of his thoughts in regards to certain things an i would be curious to see whether these were hypothetical or based upon a real world exploration of what he was working on.

Other than agreeing with lindeman that the weights gain force from their own swinging i do NOT agree with any of his rules of theories on how the model will operate. I do Not believe impact is the KEY and his ideas about the CF being used twice during the swinging on the descent to create usable force are IMHO unusable.

If you are pursuing his ideas and furthering them in your own way then I applaud your efforts and your systematic approach of following it throught to the END is one of the most important aspects of this game.

He did not do a personal build but it is common knowledge that I did! You can read all about it here by searching for the Lindemann thread or find it at;
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topi ... #msg154892 The first three pages should be all you need to come to a conclusion.

If you cannot find it here is a copy of my release of confidentiality regarding this topic;

Gentleman,

Peter Lindemann has responded with a reply regarding my release of our confidential agreement.

Below is a copy of his letter which I shall break down and respond to, paragraph by paragraph.

Quote

The article was written before you ran your tests, which is why "your efforts" are not mentioned. As far as I am concerned, your preliminary tests did not constitute a "fair trial" of the ideas, since you were unwilling to meet with me or give me any input into the tests you ran. This is why I believe the statement in the article is still correct. The design is "unproven" either way. Also, you made NO contribution to the ideas as they are represented in the article.

As to why my efforts are not mentioned is not a problem. As to my efforts I feel I did give it a fair trial and responded accordingly. The fact that I did not meet with you is twofold. First I wish to keep any personal bias from influencing an analytical research procedure. Second: IMO by the time a meet could have been scheduled I had ascertained that it was not cost effective to discuss a dead horse.

True I made no contribution or claim to the idea. I only stated that my findings were of negative results. The primary problem as reported to you was that the pendulums must have a force exceeding the ratchet levers weight to engage, thus the ratchet lever mus be able to retain the pendulum. Centrifugal force on the roller cam of said lever will overcome this delicate balance releasing the pendulum prematurely. That is providing it ever obtains a point of latch which as Hans describes it will not achieve.

Quote

The article, in its final form, is dated January 29, 2007. This is the exact text of the article I have released. I first contacted you on February 5, 2007 and sent you a copy of this exact article on the following day. I have all of the emails of our correspondence in my files. We also spoke on the phone and I specifically stated I wished to come to visit you so we could work out the fine details of the design.


Thanks for the occurred time reference. I can not verify as all records were destroyed as per your wish. Peter you can come visit me anytime you wish, As for working out the final design, I felt would be a waste of time and expense. I did not and do not see any fine details to work out. It is your design, I am not sold on it, I ran conclusive tests on the idea that convinced me is would not work. I am not saying it will not work in general, it would not work for me!

Now that you have "Free sourced" the design, I can leave it up to those of interest to confirm or repute my findings. I have no 'think-tank' to offer on this design.

Quote

Against my wishes, you ran some quick tests and told me that it didn't work, and that it was of no use for me to come visit

.

You may refer to my tests as 'quick' by your time. I gave it a fair and unbiased analytical objective test using empirical experience of past education. My reputation for doing so is why I assumed you accepted the referral you received bringing me to your attention. An experienced hands on approach does not require a hypothesis, or pages of math, Your design was sufficient and left no questions about its build or method of operation.

Quote

If this is what you mean by "your efforts" than you are, of course, free to speak your truth. But quite honestly, I can't imagine what you believe you are due to "receive recognition" for, other than running a few failed tests that I never saw and have no idea if they were related to my designs at all.


Thank you! and as you say I do not deserve or want recognition for your design, I only questioned the statement;
Quote

As of this writing, the Mechanical Engine has not been built and tested. The purpose of publishing the design “unproven� is to encourage its broad circulation among researchers, worldwide, without the burden of making claims and presenting proofs.


You have now explained this, by stating it was written one month before you contacted me. I wish now to claim that that the design has been researched to a point that IMO of not being viable for farther analysis. Once again I am not stating that the machine is a non-runner, this is my opinion and should not dampen the spirits of any enthusiast wishing to find out for themselves.

Quote

You told me that your simple, preliminary tests suggested to you that the design "didn't work" because the weights would just fly all the way out and stay on the perimeter. But, to my knowledge, you never built the whole machine, or attempted to run it slow enough so that this phenomena did NOT occur. Since proper function of the machine depends on the weights being able to spring back toward the center, your report that they "don't" simply indicated to me that you did not take the time to either understand the machine or attempt to test it in its "operating window".


I believe I carried the test far enough to observe that between the pendulums verses the ratchet roller arms there enough contention between Centrifugal force and Centripetal to negate functional operation. Providing the pendulum swing gained the required azimuth to lock into the ratchet, the roller cams effected by CF would allow it to unlock prematurely. A lower rpm of the embodiment and you lose the pendulum reciprocating cycle.

Quote

In our last phone call, we decided to end our efforts on the project. I asked you to destroy your files and you agreed to. I also wish to acknowledge that you have honored your commitment to keep the design confidential up until now. Thank you.

In all fairness, Ralph, you are welcome to tell people that I contacted you with the design (as published) in February of 2007, and that you ran some preliminary tests which lead you to believe "whatever you believe". If, however, you wish to tell people that "it doesn't work", I believe you are being unfair. On the other hand, if you tell people about the tests you ran and your results, I have no problem with that. You see, I believe your tests indicate that it will work IF the speed is restrained, so we have a difference of interpretation on your test results. Also, if you have worked with the ideas since then, and you have made your own designs based on mine as a starting place, then simple state these facts and publish whatever you have done that is genuinely YOURS.

With due respect I thank you. I am not saying it does not work, only that my opinion differs, I have not worked with the idea nor have I made any designs based on your concept. I have nothing to report either as a follow-up or augmentation of your design. My own work is discussed by telephone, and private mail. I/we will publish when the time is right! Remember, most of my work is based on confidential submitters which you have complimented me on for living up to my oath and integrity.


Ralph

[Grimer]

I have to admire the tremendous amount of effort, and expense presumably, that you have put into the search for a new source of energy.

[FunWithGravity2]

I hope he paid you well for the build Ralph, i would have turned it down outright based on incorrect principle and fundamental misunderstanding of the physical world. In all mistakes something can be learned though. Hope someone learned something from it, as i'm sure it took you some time.

IHMO the Lindeman example and the Turion example only need one mech to let them know what will happen, adding 3 then 6 and then 18 will not change the outcome. But constantly this is overlooked and the charge forward continues. The Lindemann example shows how over zealous people can be in their belief of something that has no chance, and this is when a real world build is presented and the ideas are shared openly.

Turion, i strongly suggest you stop at three mechs, you can learn something at that point, every time you add a mech after that point you WILL be shortening the distance you need to get a reset and might THINK you need more to get that extra bit but as you compress the reset amount in degrees you increase the reset torque by the same amount. It will get shorter and HEAVIER. But thats just my opinion, at one time i had a 2 foot diameter wheel that was 16inches thick, we have all been their.

Dave

[11Turion]

Ralph,
I didn't mean to rehash Peter's design at yet another forum. Sorry about that. What I intended to bring up was his revision of those ideas where he communicated that he felt the pendulum needed to be attached to the outside rim of the wheel, and it needed to fall when the wheel was at the bottom of the rotation. I am trying to incorporate those two specific ideas into a design. That is one of three directions I am going with this experimenting.

That aside, I would be interested in what you have to say regarding the design I have come up with and posted here, which is in no way related to Peter's design. I have no software to run computer simulations. I just build things and see if they work, so I am always interested in the opinions of others. I will continue my build as planned, but am not brash enough to disregard intelligent ideas on a second or third build incorporating new ideas or revisions. As you may notice, I am posting everything to YouTube and open sourcing everything as I go along. I want no money out of this. I want a working design. If that ever happens, there will be plenty of opportunity to make money.

Dave, I appreciate the input. I will stop at three weight sets on the front of my wheel. Which still allows me to have three on the back side of the wheel that are offset from those on the front without changing anything else. It would still allow for the same amount of time for a reset, etc. In fact, I can put six on the front without changing the arc my pendulums are currently using, which still leaves room for six on the back. So I could have 12 pendulums swinging without decreasing the swing or arc. I have already figured all that in. But I DO understand what you are saying. As my grandma used to say, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." So continuing to add pendulums to something that doesn't work is not going to make it any better.

Not having a degree in anything to do with the engineering of this stuff, I only learn from building. So Seeing how the length of the arms, the position of the fulcrum, the various weights, etc. influence or change things will be the major part of what I work on once I have three weight sets on my wheel.

I should mention that I also have a 10' wheel with 10 and 20 pound weights that I got from Target. Target has some great weights there (square, hand held ones) that screw onto both ends of a short threaded rod (metric threads). I bought rod with the same thread pattern, and can make some really nice pendulums with them. Of course these will be for when I get a design that works on the smaller wheel I am messing around with. (I can dream can't I????)

[rlortie]

11Turion,

That aside, I would be interested in what you have to say regarding the design I have come up with and posted here, which is in no way related to Peter's design.

I always make it a point to respond when I am addressed in a post such as above. Unfortunately my time is limited at present. please be patient and I will respond with my two cents worth. After I have had a better chance to review your video and text when I can concentrate on it.

I hope he paid you well for the build Ralph, i would have turned it down outright based on incorrect principle and fundamental misunderstanding of the physical world. In all mistakes something can be learned though. Hope someone learned something from it, as i'm sure it took you some time.

I did not charge anything! Remember: 'Arrache' is a dot Org working on a philanthropic registration. There is no fee until something that can earn its keep is founded.

Ralph

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi 11Turion,

I would trust Ralphs judgement when it come to hands on experiments!

Here is something I posted on another thread,

Also on out of balance wheel Attempts there is a degree of weightlessness as a weight falls and chaos is the result, when I built my velocity shunt wheels this could be seen clearly, as a weight fell there was a out of balance on the opposite side of the wheel, so when the weight hit the bottom of its slot with a bang there was another weight falling so you was working against a negative imbalance and the shunt was lost!

Its even worse with your set up.

I have not got time to tell you everything I know on the subject, but if you keep up the experiments you will find out for your self, you are not wasting your time with experiments like this because they will lead to many Ideas! and maybe something the rest of us have all missed.

Regards Trevor

Edit, Impact is not the Key, unless you have lost the key and you need to break down the door.

[Tarsier79]

Love the vids 11Turion, and a unique idea(at least from what I have seen).

I have previously stated that only a single mechanism is required to judge a build. But in the haze of 11:00 + Beer, I now see that a minimum of 2 mechanisms are required to prove/disprove any mechanism.

Due to the frictions involved, If you have a mechanism that contributes 101%(unlikely), but the mounting plate has inertia, and is mounted on 2 bearings also contributing friction, 1 mechanism won't work, but maybe 10 will.

Considering this... Install 1 mechanism, and drop from as close to 12:00 as possible, then measure the rotation of the backplate, and express it as a percentage of a full rotation. Secondly, install the second mechanism and perform the same test, but express the rotation as a percentage of 180 degrees. IF the second percentage is higher than the first, then spend the time and money on more mechanisms, otherwise go back to the drawing board.


Keep up the good work!

[11Turion]

Tarsier79,
I understand your formula, and why you are saying that, but I'm just not sure it can be applied practically. When you add a second device, its location affects its performance. If it is 180 degrees out from the first and is triggered, the thing ought to run. If it is less than that, you don't have a balanced machine and you KNOW it won't run. If the second device is triggered, perhaps your formula would then apply. But even then, unless you know it is as far from the first device as it could possibly be and still be triggered, what do you know for sure? But what if it is 180 degrees out and is not triggered? That means you need at least a third device to know. Or maybe I am all wet. LOL. I have been all wet many, many times.

I have so many different variables on my build to play with. I am trying to optimize its performance with ONE mechanism while I wait for parts for the 3rd-12th mechanisms, so I am playing with weights and arm lengths, etc. Even if I stop at 3 mechanisms, I want those parts for other builds, and nothing goes to waste in my shop. I have drawers full of junk from the past I find uses for today.

I added a spring today, which I was pleasantly surprised to see dramatically increased the rotation of the device.

I am NOT relying on just impact for this device to function. When the second weight falls, it puts the right side of the wheel out of balance because it falls out away from the hub. Not only does it create a second impact, but it creates an imbalance. Part of the design of this is to have more of those second weights out away from the hub on the right side (clockwise rotation) than on the left. And when the second weight has fallen out from the hub, the mechanism I came up with that joins the two weights together puts constant torque on the wheel until the second weight is past bottom dead center. At that point, for about 15 degrees of rotation, the first weight re-cocks the second weight back to its original position

Here is my YouTube video for the day.
http://www.youtube.com/user/11Turion?fe ... F0SgtXf0GU

[getterdone]

Hi torion, I find your latest experiment interesting. I don't know much about physics, but are you telling us that when the weight falls and hits the spring rather than the stopper you get a better result? Could this be because the spring stores the energy temperarily and then releases it a bit later in the rotation, or that it gives it a push rather than a hit?

Just curious about your thoughs on this

[11Turion]

I definitely get a better result when the spring is there. Significantly better. It causes the wheel to rotate farther. I have tried it with and without the spring several times now just to be sure, and that is what I am seeing. At this point I can honestly say that I believe any impact I devise from this point forward will have a spring at the receiving point.

By the way, from what I am seeing, a combination of overbalance AND impact can get a self rotating wheel. This is not just a pipe dream. Remember I said that, and the day I said it. Only time will tell if I am full of hot air.

[Grimer]

By the way, from what I am seeing, a combination of overbalance AND impact can get a self rotating wheel. This is not just a pipe dream. Remember I said that, and the day I said it. Only time will tell if I am full of hot air.

You are not full of hot air, Turion. Far from it. You have discovered experimentally that strain energy storage plus overbalancing is the key to a self rotating wheel. Congratulations. Keep at it and you might even beat path_finder to building a PM.

Qui audet adipiscitur
.........................

I've clicked your greenie in recognition of your achievement.