Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference

[Robinhood46]

That doesn't work when you put the two sets of two weights because of the stepping back of the weights during rotation. It works fine with one pair but not two. This is why i had been looking at an odd number of points to step the weights around the wheel.
The weights not being fixed to a specific section of the wheel is still interesting and i still believe it to be promising, i think i am a long way from giving up on this principal.
The mechanisms are a long way from functioning correctly. The rare occasions that they do fall where needed i do get the impression that something along these lines is hopefull.
At each fraction of the movement from initiel configuration to following identical configuration you need to use your imagination to add the effect of movement, which cannot be shown in the photos.

[Robinhood46]

Food for thought.
If we were to double the slots and double the weights there would be 16 slots and 12 weights.
We know there are 16 slots on the inner wheel of the Buzzsaw and we know there are 12 weights remaining, that were found with the wheel.
Is this just a coincidence?
The outer wheel has only 8 slots, which is half of the inner. By rotating the outer wheel in the same direction as the inner, but at a slightly slower speed, it would be possible to create a path very similar to that of the swinging weights of Bessler's wheel. (my present attempt)
The fact that the outer wheel only has 8 slots is probably because it only needs 8 slots. When the two wheels are again synchronized after rotaing at different speeds, it will be the slots next to the original slots which will allow the shifting of the weight from inner to outer and outer to inner. This would produce the effect of the weights progressing around the wheel in a counter rotationional direction, (not a closed path, with regard the wheel).
The Buzzsaw weights cannot pass other weights, there isn't enough space. The Buzzsaw weights could only step back 1 slot, of this there is no doubt. Stepping back one slot or swinging back two slots is the same principal. There is a weight permanently further from the centre between 3 and 6 o'clock that does not have a partner to counter balance it.
The weights moving in just before 9 and out just before 3. Springs can help the swinging or hammers cab help the shifting.

[Robinhood46]

I have shared my thoughts about believing that the Buzzsaw works by using the same "principal" as the Bessler wheel. From what information there is available for the two PM gravity wheels i have also believed that Bessler's wheel is far more effective than the Buzzsaw or Heathern, which it is also refered to.
The common factor in the two wheels, the "principal" is i "believe" to be the moving of the weights in relation to the wheel, as in not being confined to a specific section of the wheel. Weights that are allowed/forced to move around the wheel while the wheel is rotating are able to move the effect they have on the wheel.
A simple bicycle tirned upside down, with a single weight fixed to the rim of the front wheel allows to understand the simplicity of the principal. When the wheel is put into motion, with enough force to make it rotate, say 20 times before the weight can no longer reach the TDC, one can observe what is actually happening. One can also observe what is needed to change the tendence of progressively slowing down to progressively speeding up.
The answer is very simply, move the COM a tiny fraction radially at the right moment in the right direction.
I am having difficulty with the construction of my attempt at the Bessler wheel because of lack of materiel and access to machinery.
The Buzzsaw using the same principal would maybe work something along these lines ?
12 weights that cannot pass each other.
A wheel that is thought to be PM but considered to be not effective.
A mechanism that is not working in 360° cycles.
A wheel that shakes the building to pieces and maybe the foundations of science.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,

adding more weights and pieces make the complete construction heavier and even more complex in the movment.

When you follow the treads here on board, then you will see that they all look at a top heavy construction, the Center of mass (CoM) must be always above the axle.

This cannot be managed if you have a central axle, gravity will always be the winner when the CoM is dropping.

In your construction you already start with the CoM under the axle
(as i can see it), so you must start, activate the turning with your hand.

That, what gravity can do for you, you block.
You produce stress on the axle.
What I have found is that we have to avoid this situation.

Therefore I have made a coupled construction.
When you turn such a construction gravity will compress always with the upper weight the springs,
so you have a construction which is under stress by gravity, but you can release this stored energy at any point in the wheel.
It was a learning exercise for me, when I put this in my apologia wheel.

So to put the construction under stress of gravity was an fundamental step for me. The turning point is not the middle axle, that is the fundamental difference.

[Robinhood46]

Hi Georg,
Trying to find the answer in the same way, i and thousands of others have been trying for many decades has a track record of failing to achieve the objective.
Everyone is trying to do "this" or everyone is trying to" that", because that's obviously where the answer is, doesn't give me the impression of being an objective argument as to why a different method wouldn't work.
In the witness acounts of the Buzzsaw, it was clear i believe that "the thing would shake the building".
An offset COM going around an axle will effectively, as you have pointed out, "produce stress on the axle". It is, or at least can be argued, that it is this stress on the axle of a machine with such a heavy mass that would be responsible for the shaking of the said building.
The use of the words "something along these lines" was to show simply how, with the information we have regarding the Buzzsaw, we could create the same "principal" as i am currently working on for the Bessler wheel.
Weights swinging backwards (or forwards) or weights shifting to outer wheel and moving backwards (or forwards) is two different methods for achieving the same goal.
The goal is to move the COM radially.
An offset mass on a wheel does not stop a wheel from going around. The weight being affected by gravity is equal on both sides, the stress of the offset mass will effectively increase the friction on the axle and increase the slowing of the wheel. Friction is a hinderance and not an insurmountable obstacle.
Could the weights have a different distribution to balance things out a bit?
Could the weights be of a different number?
Could the ratio be different to allow a full turn of the wheel before the transfer?
Could Bessler have achieved the radial displacement of the COM far more effectively by breaking the wheel up into balanced sections?
To the question; Is radially moving the COM the answer?
No, because it doesn't incorperate what i think to be the answer, is not a constructive argument.
Come on Georg, you can do better than that.
All the best and keep trying,
RH

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,

I do agree that

"the thing would shake the building".

Demonstraded from Tesla already.

You only have to find its natural frequency.
And that will also happen with the Buzzsaw.

If you don't find the right frequence, it will not produce energy, it will waste it.
So you have a "working window".

you wrote:

To the question; Is radially moving the COM the answer?
No, because it doesn't incorperate what i think to be the answer, is not a constructive argument.

If you move all the masses radially, then you have a round wheel.
gravity can do nothing for you in that case, left and right forces are equal.

If you move some masses radially and some not at the same time, then you have an construction with an unbalance couple.
It is an eccentric weight distribution, like a tire before some small weights are attached.
Then gravity can interact.

you wrote:

Could Bessler have achieved the radial displacement of the COM far more effectively by breaking the wheel up into balanced sections?

Yes he did, because he said it is a well balanced system.
And one is going to the rim the other to the center.
Here you always look at a wheel with spokes and moving the weights along, a central axle.
I can clearly say, this interpretation is wrong.
The movement is totally different. It will go to the rim but on a courved way.

[Robinhood46]

Hi Georg,
This is the interesting part.

If you move some masses radially and some not at the same time, then you have a construction with an unbalance couple.
It is an eccentric weight distribution, like a tire before some small weights are attached.
Then gravity can interact.

If the Buzzsaw, which we were told we should not think in 360°, moves one weight radially one revolution, and another weight radially the next revolution, we could achieve this.
If Bessler's wheel swings one weight radially one revolution and another radially the next revolution, we could achieve this.
For the weights to move alternately radially around the wheel, each time one moves, whichever method used, it must only go to it's new postion and never come back. The weights must move alternately, progressively around the wheel in one direction.

[Robinhood46]

What about something along these lines? How many clues does this validate?
Photo N° 2 shows the weight swinging inside of the "perpendicular boards".
N° 5 is exactly the same as N° 1 only stepped 1 section around the wheel, if you imagine it rotating to be at the bottom.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,

Dynamische Unwucht

Dynamische Unwuchten (auch Momentenunwucht) entstehen, wenn die Rotationsachse nicht mit einer der stabilen Hauptträgheitsachsen des Bauteils übereinstimmt, sondern im Schwerpunkt gegenüber den Hauptträgheitsachsen gekippt ist.

Dynamische Unwuchten treten erst im Betrieb auf. Sie äußern sich in einem Biegemoment, dem sogenannten Unwuchtmoment auf der Rotationsachse. Sie rufen an den Enden der Achse um 180 Winkelgrade verschobene, kreisförmige Schwingungen hervor. Der Schwerpunkt des rotierenden Körpers bleibt in Ruhelage, während die Achse wegen der entgegengesetzten Kreisbewegungen taumelt.

Verursacht wird die dynamische Unwucht etwa beim unfachmännischen Auswuchten durch zwei versetzt gegenüberliegende Unwuchten: U 1 = r u {\displaystyle U_{1}=ru} {\displaystyle U_{1}=ru} und U 2 = − r u {\displaystyle U_{2}=-ru} {\displaystyle U_{2}=-ru} im Achsabstand l {\displaystyle l} l. Hierdurch wirkt jeweils eine Kraft F = F 1 = U 1 ω 2 = − F 2 = − U 2 ω 2 {\displaystyle F=F_{1}=U_{1}\omega ^{2}=-F_{2}=-U_{2}\omega ^{2}} {\displaystyle F=F_{1}=U_{1}\omega ^{2}=-F_{2}=-U_{2}\omega ^{2}} und diese bewirken ein Drehmoment M = F 1 l / 2 − F 2 l / 2 = l F {\displaystyle M=F_{1}l/2-F_{2}l/2=lF} {\displaystyle M=F_{1}l/2-F_{2}l/2=lF} senkrecht zur Drehachse der Rotation, das mit dieser Drehachse rotiert.

Das Deviationsmoment in SI-Einheiten m²kg ergibt sich aus

D = u l r = U l {\displaystyle D=ulr=Ul} {\displaystyle D=ulr=Ul}

Beispiel: zwei gegenüberliegende, jedoch an verschiedenen Seiten an einem Fahrradrad angebrachte Reflektoren

Man nimmt diese Form der Unwucht z. B. bei KFZ-Rädern oft als „Flattern“ wahr. Sie werden daher dynamisch gewuchtet, was dazu führen kann, dass beide Seiten (innen und außen) der Felge Ausgleichsgewichte tragen.

I have not found the text in english. It is coming from Wikipedia
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unwucht

It is known physic, but technicians like to prevent this situation.

if you take two sin shaped swingings with an offset of 180 degrees they will eliminate to zero.

If you mirror the half from 0 to 180 degrees upwards, then you have an add up in the intervall from 1 to 180 degrees.
The intervall from 180 to 360 degrees still ad up to zero.


you wrote:

The weights must move alternately, progressively around the wheel in one direction.

True they will do it this way.
When masses are going around and you disturb their normal movment it is like a split of the forces.
So we have to take into account the repelling mass and the wall.
But what I do In my constructions is that I have a moving wall.

[Robinhood46]

Liking the theory is all well and good. We need to find a way of getting it to happen.
Here is a diagram of the weights path (in space).
The path of the weight with regard the wheel itself would be different at 6 o'clock, because the wheel continues to rotate while the weight hangs free.
The vertical line is slightly after 6.

[johannesbender]

is the path vertical change to be viewed as a lift or a drop ?

[Robinhood46]

It is a lift.
If you look closely at photos 1,2 and 3, you can see the wheel rotating clockwise, with the red tape moving further away each frame. The weight rests at BDC and rises.
It's difficult to see the lift of 45 mm but i can assure you it is there.
The path of the weight will be different at both points of transfer when the wheel is in motion. The 45 mm nearer to centre on the up side than the down side would still be valid.
Maybe this is where springs or connecting rods, between the two oppsing weights doing the moving, would assist the transfer to make it happen earlier or just faster?

[johannesbender]

double post

[johannesbender]

talking in general about springs , if it was manageable to compress and release springs ..

i think the release would have to happen at a specific angle and orientation during rotation ... timing

[Robinhood46]

I think we are a long way off worrying about springs. We need first to find the path of the weights, the N° of weights, how many sections within the wheel, are the weights interconnected and if so how?
I can clearly see springs being of some kind of assistance to the workings of the mechanism but i can't see springs giving us the principal of the wheel.