Posted by There's a catch here somewhere (67.31.157.204) on June 11, 2003 at 23:33:04:
In Reply to: Rotating in Reverse posted by ovyyus on June 11, 2003 at 22:41:57:
I would think that there's a catch to extracting perpetual motion from two wheels opposed on the same axle. In fact, I would say several. In observing the recently released wheel at greaterthings.com, one may hypothesize that, in a reversed direction, not only would the weights be much quieter on their slower impact with the rim, but also could be made to stay there with "catches" thereby turning it into a flywheel in a single revolution as the other one kicks into action.
: Bessler stated that, during demonstrations, he would allow his wheel to be pushed or turned in any manner desired, stipulating only that the wheel must not be forced to rotate faster than the maximum speed for which it was designed.
: That being so, Bessler would have had no objection to someone turning his uni-direction wheel in reverse for as long as they liked.
: This raises a couple of questions: 1) Did the uni-direction wheel exhibit an overbalancing force when rotated in reverse? 2) Did the uni-direction wheel exhibit rim impact noise when rotated in reverse?
: IMO, if the later bi-direction wheels were composed of two joined back-to-back uni-direction wheels then, IMO, the one-direction design must have been silent when operated in reverse, otherwise the bi-direction wheels would have exhibited rim impact noise on both sides of the wheel.
: Furthermore, if the overbalancing force acting on the wheel was accompanied by unavoidable rim impact noise (Bessler said he couldn't silence the noise) then, IMO, the uni-direction wheel exhibited no torque (was balanced) when turned backwards. No noise = no torque.
: Question for those presently building wheel attempts: Can your design be turned in reverse without problems?
: Regards, ovyyus