Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference

[Robinhood46]

The primary focus is to define the effect you are analyzing.

I agree with this entirely.
As much as i have been very reluctant to take the path of simulations, the benefits are unmeasurable. Even when i was still at the pathetic animation stage, it allowed me to save many hours and the often non negligible cost of building ever more wheels destined to be failures.
The visualisation, of what we think to be promising, allows us to see clearly that we were completely out of touch with reality, in one way or another, and often in many ways simultaneously.
After spending a few decades building failures, i do appreciate the possibility to gain the majority of the information that would be gained by a real build. The missing part, which can only be found from real builds, will only become necessary once the bulk has been found.
I think a simulation will give us the principal, which is what's missing, real builds are for the details.

[thx4]

Like the devil, that's probably why I prefer real models :)

A++

[Georg Künstler]

To try to solve the problem in a wheel is for the beginnig to complex.

Therefore the first step must be to create an undamped oscillation.

If this step is managed then you can apply this undamped oscillation into a wheel, with many different versions.

A normal pendulum is the basic of the construction.
What is different to this pendulum is the moving suspension point.
If the suspension point is moved up and down and also from left to right you will get as result an undamped oscillation.
You will get an amplification of the swinging.

There is not more as this basic movement in the Bessler wheel.

[Robinhood46]

I think the weights need to move in this manner.
The yellow weights start on the leading edge, moves to the centre and then finish at the tailing edge.
The yellow weight then becomes green and is positioned at the leading edge, and this goes on continually.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,
i disagree with your view, I have build several versions of the Apologia wheel and all were symmetrical, so you have no energy gain.

The Apologia wheel is an oscillator so it is swinging back and forth with increasing amplitude.

I will describe how I see it.

Take a look to the two upper parts.
You will get two mass centers, one left, one right.
The system with only 2 weights is top heavy.
It fullfils Besslers clue, well balanced.
One degree left or right, and the top heavy construction will fall over.
It like to change the status from instable to stable.
They change the lever length.

Now we get the third weight.
The third weight is hanging on the middle axle straight down.
It can be a pendulum with a weight.
The Apologia wheel is open in the down area by maybe 22 degrees.
when now the upper weights begin to fall they can fall 11 degrees until the 3 weight will come to action. Now we have 2 weights on one side which are lifted for a moment. The two will pullback the first weight.
It will swing to the other side and repeat the oscillation.
It is creating an self amplified oscillation

[Robinhood46]

Hi Georg,
I think you may have misunderstood.
My thoughts are that the apologia wheel "may represents" the movement of an individual weight, and not a collection of three weights. Because of the displacement of the weights from one section to another, they must move from somewhere to somewhere else. This moving of the weights, radially cannot be achieved without some sort of progression, or regression in relation to the wheel. If each weight swaps from one section of the apologia wheel to the next, then we would have exactly the same situation as the attempt by Leonardo Da Vinci, which i spoke of at the beginning of this thread. This wouldn't be a gravity wheel with the difference.
Apologia could also have been representative of this with simple radial lines, there would be no need for the segments.

[Robinhood46]

Here is a slight variation that may be promising.
I have generally been trying with the smaller weights doing the walking around the wheel, with the hope of shifting the heavy weights.
This method has the smaller weights fixed to their specific section of the wheel and the heavy weights which do the progressing.
The arms holding the heavy weights didn't need to have the shape of the "R" in his logo, with this method of shifting them, at least that is what i thought. I made the arms, just to show the eventual connection with his clues. It turns out that the R shape may well be necessary. The holding of the weights in their position, before they do their work and the timed releasing at varying speeds, is one of the difficult tasks of these wheels with the difference i think to be important. The added curve of the "R" allows the previous weight to be held, and released, at the correct time irrespective of speed. At least i think it could.
This is my first attempt at this kind of falling back of the lighter weights. By having them fall out, as opposed to in, there is a considerable gain in the leverage that can be applied to the heavy weights. In the video the weight ration is about 3;1, it is clear that a 4;1 ratio can easily be achieved.
The weight does lift up rapidly at the bottom, and it does also go on to climb during the continuation of the swinging lighter weight. The climbing in the video is pretty crap, admittedly, but it is still early days.
The number of weights being 9, is 9 for reasons related to the synchronisation of the following weights to be added, if it was the smaller weights doing the walking. With the smaller weights fixed to specific sections, 8 is probably possible, without creating the bad synchronisation with the added weights. I hope it is the case, because impaired numbers, do not allow a left and right handed set up.
In the video the "collision layers" is allowing the weights to pass through bars and other weights which isn't permitted in the real world. Left and right handed arms and weights would enable this to happen in the real world, as long as they only cross their immediate neighbours.
https://youtu.be/pic-9yC_0mw

[Robinhood46]

For what it is worth, this could also be the "R".
It could explain the loop where there is not a weight.
It could also be complete nonsense, and I'm at it again, trying to make the clues fit my most recent attempt.
I think that in the case of this crime, one should assume oneself is guilty until proven innocent.

[Tarsier79]

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/down ... er=user_id

Here is an oldy... RH, it is funny how similar it is to your basic premise for a fundametal difference. Also, take a step back and look closely at the system COM.

[Robinhood46]

Tarsier,
I said on the first post of this thread

If i take 1000 images of gravity wheels from a google search. 999 are going around in circles and one is not.

My point is that trying where thousands have been trying for centuries without success, may be the reason we are not succeeding. I didn't invent the difference between wheels with weights that are fixed to a specific section, and wheels with weights that are not. I merely noted that literally 99.9 % of attempts are in one category.
I also think that by separating the rotating speed of the wheel, the driving weights and the driven weights "could" "maybe" give us the loophole we have been looking for to explain the physics.
Two closed circuits rotating around a fixed axis at different speeds are continually accelerating away from each other.
Pathfinder has made a lot of very interesting contributions on this forum.
The sticks falling forward or swinging backward (with relation to the wheel/frame) can not in any way give us PM alone.
Bessler mentioned "the buyers buying", he didn't mention the buyers stealing or magically producing. Pointing out that the COM is unfavourable is like saying something is too expensive without knowing what it is.

[Tarsier79]

When rotation relies on system com and system com is clearly unfavorable, it is pretty obvious it isn't worth paying for. Self rotation requires the same thing regardless of the levers staying put or advancing around. Sort of sounds like you said exactly the same thing.

Do I get an inkling of defensiveness? There is no need for offense. No one is an expert unless they actually build a successful model.

[raj]

My apology to butt in on this thread

What if each one of several separate weights/balls inside a balanced wheel on a horizontal axle, in pre-defined axial orbit, moves/rolls twice as fast as the wheel around the axle?

Would there be a conservation of angular momentums?

[Georg Künstler]

Here I must agree with Robinhood46,
99,9 percent are all the same type of constructions which are using a fix axle and levers.
In that case the CoM is stationary.

What I am doing is a wandering CoM in the frame of reference.
The CoM is beeing moved in /X/Y/ direction so the CoM is going up and down and also is going from left to right and the reversal down and up and from right to left.

I have described this function as a wandering CoM, it is an oscillation of the CoM in the /X/Y/ coordinates.

A energy difference can only occure when you use different accelerations.
We have the normal acceleration of Gravity which is about the 9,81...
So we must have an overlay to get an energy difference, so that we can earn the energy.

There are two methods which I have found up to now, and both are working with an undamped oscillation. The methods can then applied to any wheel construction.

[Robinhood46]

It is always difficult to get things to do what i would like them to do.
When i place the heavy weights in their appropriate places, manually, i can achieve a constant excess weight to the right of the centre. Or more objectively, it appears that i can. Getting them to move automatically is another matter, the problem being the locking/releasing mechanisms.
The reason the crossbar doesn't "sit right" at the end of the swing, is because the spring is pulling it back up. If the the arm holding the heavy weight at the 2 o'clock position was fixed to the crossbar, by a locking mechanism, the spring would not have the effect of pulling the crossbar up.
The same applies for the weight after it has been lifted, by the spring, at the 7 o'clock position. It needs to be locked to the crossbar, to stop it swinging back down and out.
The path of the weights, if the locking releasing mechanisms worked as desired, would be favourable. The weights would only be away from the centre from 2 to 7.
The swinging of the whole thing (crossbar) raises the top weight against gravity and puts the spring under tension. The bottom weight could well be raised rapidly, if it wasn't released until after the arm had swung away from the central bearing (in green). "The weight rises in a flash to the centre and then climbs to the rim".
The variation of the wood choppers is clear to see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixb33SSapWs

[Robinhood46]

This was posted in a thread titled, "collection of clues"
--------------------------------------------------
The levers loaded with heavy weights as viewed from the side, may be compared to side views of many children playing with very heavy clubs among tall broken columns. The strongest of the children cannot lift the lightest of the clubs. Still, each child can swing (or you might call it "step" as it uses a club as a "leg") from the top of one broken column to the top of the next broken column by positioning his heavy club on the ground between the two close columns and holding on to the handle end to swing over to the top of the next column. Then he rotates the handle end of his club to maneuver it between his current column and his next intended column so that he can again "step" or swing a small angle over to the top of the next intended broken column. If the clubs are even heavier by being double-ended, then instead of rolling them to the next position, they may be alternatively transported between the columns by switching ends. A double club may be moved in seesaw fashion by leaning it against the current broken column that the child is on and rolling it over the top of the column (assuming that there is enough room for the child to stay on top of the column). The double club is pivoted with a circular motion with one end going up while the other end goes down. ? Bessler (Ramananda, "Dialogues at the Castle of Weissenstein")

-------------------------------------------------
I'm sure many here are familiar with this 'explanation'.
It is difficult to understand exactly what Bessler was saying, as with many of his quotes or clues.

The only thing i can imagine, is something along these lines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E135yhCSvnA
I obviously can't swivel the "clubs" toward, or away from me, as Algodoo is only 2D. I think this short video allows you to understand the swivelling in the missing dimension by the sequence of stages between each position.

I can't see any other way of achieving anything remotely representing his words.
If i curve the handle of the club, the swivelling creates a lateral movement of the child (blue circle), and he would only be able to stay on the column if there was enough room for this movement.