A perpetual MOTION wheel ?

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Post Reply
User avatar
raj
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2981
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:53 am
Location: Mauritius

re: A perpetual MOTION wheel ?

Post by raj »

The motion wheel or gravity wheel (what's in a name?), call it what you may, is a device with an outer drum wheel with an inner drum wheel or mechanical inner arrangement, working as one unit together, but each one with a specific task.

The weights move around /swing inside the drum wheel with the help of both the outer and inner drum wheel/mechanical arrangement.

For the lifting of the weights on the ascending side of the drum wheel, the inner wheel/mechanical arragement, is in charge, taking inwards, the weights from the 6 o'clock position to the CENTRE (axle) of the of the drum wheel, because its shorter radius.

For the falling of the weights, on the descending side, the outer drum wheel takes charge, taking outwards the weights from the CENTRE (axle) of the drum wheel to the 6 o'clock position, because of its longer radius.

With such a design, the CF, gravity effect and torques on the weights will be closely linked to the inner wheel shorter radius on the ascending side and the outer wheel longer radius on the descending side.

In such design, I don't see any symmetry or balanced state.

All the above is just to show, how much I AGREE with Trevor.

Raj
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

re: A perpetual MOTION wheel ?

Post by eccentrically1 »

jim_mich wrote:I hope you don't feel buried in data. And as always, I hope I've not made any math errors.
Data is good. But does the slower speed mean the weights' two different radii are now both less?
If they are stuck to the 72" rim at 22. rpm and above, then below that, at 20 rpm means they wouldn't have the CF to remain at those radii (49" and 69") around the axis. If they are connected to each other in pairs, and to the wheel someway, and moving in and out, how could they maintain the same distances at two different speeds?
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: A perpetual MOTION wheel ?

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Jim,

I have taken the time to look more closely at your post, I now see that there was a switch from fly wheels to gear wheels wherein your your quote would be correct as a gear wheel system. the point I was trying to make was a mechanism rotating at 10 RPM could be seen as a wheel rotating at 25 RPM if the outer wheel is a fly wheel! hope thats clears that up, the misunderstand was down to me!
The energy output of any mechanism is force times distance. A wheel running at a slower speed must produce a much higher amount of force per rotation. If an inner wheel rotates at 10 RPM and the outer wheel at 25 RPM then the inner wheel must produce 2-1/2 times the rotational torque of the outer wheel.
If your above wheel arrangement was a CF system it would still grind to a halt with out a external energy input, as with any CF system.

Regards Trevor
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: A perpetual MOTION wheel ?

Post by rlortie »

Six pages of "weights, levers, inertia and Cf!

Makes me want to look for the Bessler phrase of building wheels of all sizes and force including wheels without weights.

Can anybody lead me to that mention?

Ralph
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: A perpetual MOTION wheel ?

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Ralph,

I think you could have a wheel without weights!

But not without leverage!

with Respect Trevor
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

It is my belief that the PM principle is so simple it can be accomplished with fluid flowing through a uniquely shaped conduit on a rotating wheel. Even the wheel can be eliminated if you take a single pipe and bend it into a uniquely shaped pattern that circles around into a closed loop. Supply the shaped conduit with an axle shaft. Fill the conduit with fluid. Give it a push start. That's all it takes. No weights are needed.

Image
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by jim_mich »

Ralph, just for you...
Bessler, in Apologia Poetica, wrote:XXIX (b) The clattering in my machine is (says Wagner) just
for appearance's sake.

Herr Wagner says that my machine does not, under any
circumstances, derive its motive force from the noisy weights. In
other words, he declares that the mechanism that causes all the
clattering (which was commented on earlier and which was noted
by so many people) is not, in fact, the thing which causes the
rotation of my Wheel.
339
The clattering noise you refer to is, I assure you, a phenomenon
caused directly by the real motive power of the machine, and
nothing else. You also wish me to inform you why the Draschwitz
machine did not create a similar noise; well, I'll tell you. The two
machines can easily be contrasted, as they worked on quite
different principles. The former (Draschwitz) one turned in only
one direction, but the latter (Merseburg ) one turned, as everyone
could see, both ways. The former was provided with felt
coverings, but the latter was as bare as a bald head. I have many
other machines of various types - some, for instance, with
weights, others without.
Your questions are extremely irritating.
Why don't you get your wheel moving? Till then, shut up.
Red highlight is mine.

Image
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: A perpetual MOTION wheel ?

Post by rlortie »

Jim,

Although I have collaborated with many members with fluid designs based on mass or buoyancy, I have always personally shied away from them.

A couple of months ago I received a design calling for hydraulics. I was not impressed as the mechanical force required would never achieve OB due to friction and latency.

It did however spark a few innovative thoughts that has caused me to loose a lot of sleep. I have improved on the concept considerably and concluded that it is to the point of a build. I believe it will be the only cure for a good nights sleep.

And yes, the member who hit the delay switch on the Winnie Winkle "Denny Dimwit" light bulb has been recognized, the light keeps getter brighter! Unfortunately building a Newtonian liquid design is going to make my wallet thinner.

Still looking for the related Bessler phrase.
Edit: Thanks Jim, Our posts crossed paths.
Ralph
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

Re: re: A perpetual MOTION wheel ?

Post by rlortie »

Trevor Lyn Whatford wrote:Hi Ralph,

I think you could have a wheel without weights!

But not without leverage!

with Respect Trevor
Trevor,

Remember way back when; You and I were discussing multiple-lever designs in reference to the boat canal lift? I believe it was before or just after you joined this forum.

Anyway something similar has reared its ugly head again!

Ralph
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: A perpetual MOTION wheel ?

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Ralph,
it was before I joined here! I had Bessler down as a fake but you made take another look, still I found the MT drawings here which was a surprise after I had built many of them before seeing them. I think it was the Falkirk Wheel, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n61KUGDWz2A over 800 tons driven by a 24 KW motor!
I am glad you still get the spark now and again, I know I do, the to build list gets bigger but most are just to rule them out of the Bessler’s wheel ideas. I am still mainly working on the Geo Genny when I get the time and money for bits, "not alone there then" I think most here need one or the other or both!!!
With much respect Trevor

Hi Jim,
I know fluid can be speeded up with changes of shape so why not close loop, it’s a bit tricky though as there needs a flow to do it! I was looking at the fluid clutch the other day, that was interesting how it works, it was on You tube but I do not have the link, there is more than one out there, the one I looked at was a US Navy 1953 video.
With respect Trevor

Hi Raj,
To get a weight to swing from one side to another you need maximum height by then its to late, or use mechanics, if only I had the answer then I would have a Bessler’s wheel! it has to be something more, something that is missed time and time again, as we seem to go over the same or similar wheel design options!
with respect Trevor

Hi all,
Maybe its time to think more out of the box, as the box is looking more and more empty!
With respect Trevor
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: A perpetual MOTION wheel ?

Post by rlortie »

Trevor,

Yes I now recall, it was I who brought this forum to your attention.

As for thinking "outside the box" we have been not in the laws of physics box but rather Bessler's box!

And yes it is time to consider moving on from levers, weights, crumpets and fulcrums.

I have for the last three weeks been going over Wikipedia, Stewart's forum and John's blog. Amazing how a different view or aspect can be taken from Bessler's writing if you can remove the image of a wheel with banging weights from your mind.

I find that with a little discerning or imagination, Bessler's writings and quotes can lead one back to nature conforming with all popular laws of physics.

Bessler starts by stating(in effect) : "is it a wheel for it has not rim" then he says; They call it a wheel, so let it be known as a wheel". He shows them some weights, they assume. that this is what drives the machine.

A master-craftsman for words he continues stating that the weights change places first here and then there. Is it not possible that his usage of "weights" is a term for physical mass including fluids rather than a solid object of given weight.

I leave you with extracts borrowed from Stewart's forum:
"... However when various
figures come together, and a keen
mind as well, then there is indeed a
movement to seek in them and hence eventually also to find."
Look, how you lie, according to that line,
my mobile is impossible,
that/since according to my attribution**
a mechanical force would drive it. &c.
Now as I in the first part
put more than one line,
about what manner/way the preponderance***
in my art is sought;
so I want to praise that place,
[and] point the worthy reader there;
even Wagner gets to know, (wherever he lives,)
how one pound may lift more than one. NB.
He writes: one had up to now found
no such mechanical implement*,
that is sufficient for the art. &c.
He's right, me too, who knows [why]?
But what if I will teach
how to apply so many implements*?
They will say: now we understand that,
Wagner was not a silly hare****. &c.
And this from Fletcher;
The important parts seem to be that Wagner says [repeated by Bessler] up till NOW no one had found any mechanical implement [singular], fit for the task i.e. the lever etc ?

Then Bessler says both he & Wagner are right, if he were to teach the use of many implements [plural] i.e. a combination of mechanical implements arranged a priori ?!

As you suggest Bessler's 'true PM' seems to be a cart with a horse [force] harnessed in front whilst 'false PM' [everything else attempted] could well be just the mechanical cart, with no horse to pull it, & a failure up to Bessler's time & up till now.
And I say" how do you lift tons in a canal or river lock and what is the force lifting it in pounds per square inch or what ever measurement you choose.

Back to Stewart;
who indeed is keen to question,
question this booklet. &c.
My deeds will not [be] revealed
before time, yet who wants [to] guess,
contemplate, which word-pageantry
I now mix/blend into one another:
And this one I consider a "clincher"
one sees a wheel, and also no wheel,
because it has rims and also none,
runs without internal and external wheels,
cymbal-weight, wind and clock-spring, &c.
here it looks half, there it looks whole,
it boasts like a peacock's tail, &c.
it moves to the right and to the left,
one may wave/beckon/motion him just with fingers,
it spreads itself the length and breadth,
here it is full, there it is empty;
Very fitting if one is thinking of liquid seeking its own level in a confined moving space. [/u]

Summary: Avoiding the thought of weights which may have been mainly for distraction. I can find no binding laws of physics or Bessler" objective statements that cancels the possible use of a liquid. I also point out that such a machine would likely end up being "exothermic" producing heat as a bi-product.

Due to third party binding, I cannot get much more explanatory at this time. This is a preview meant for stimulation and interest to consider not a new approach to the mystery but from a different point of view.

Ralph
User avatar
cloud camper
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:20 am

re: A perpetual MOTION wheel ?

Post by cloud camper »

No, the original one-way solution found it's expression in the banging weights.

What we have missed over and over again is the concept that purely mechanical energy (rotational PE) can be created and added completely internally to a system but only when an individual component in the system is brought to a stop.

We keep insisting that a weight cannot rise any further than it was allowed to fall but we do not consider the possibility that this energy could be generated entirely within the system.

A system of rotating/translating weights is not a closed system unto itself, rather an aggregate of multiple individual systems, each of which can be open or closed at selected moments.

Since we are not dealing with a thermodynamic process of converting heat which requires outside energy to create a delta T from which to extract work, it is then possible to create purely mechanical energy internal to the operating system without manipulation of heat.

The first law of thermodynamics considers only a single system where an energy conversion process is occurring. It does not consider the possible interaction of multiple and separate inertial systems operating together in a coordinated manner.

We can say that as long as an individual system is converting vertical PE to KE or the reverse (ie; rising or falling within a wheel) the individual system (one weight) is conservative and cannot experience a gain of energy.

But if an individual system is brought to a stop (as MT 138 clearly depicts), that individual weight is no longer converting PE to KE (or the reverse) and is now available to receive newly created rotational PE.

This newly created rotational PE obviously cannot come from the rotating aggregate of weights as these can only be conservative.

No, this newly created rotational PE can only come from a separate and secondary non-rotating inertial system that creates the rotational PE in the background, then is “switched� onto the individual stationary weight that was brought to a temporary halt. This is when all the banging occurs.

This is done by positioning a weight in the non-rotational secondary inertial system that consumes no vertical PE (work) in such a lateral position that when switched to the primary system creates a large increase in rotational PE to the primary.

The key here is that a weight must be physically switched from the secondary inertial system where it's position required no work to be performed to the primary system where it's lateral placement creates a large increase to the rotational PE of the system.

In this way we have instantly and internally created "new" rotational PE in the primary system.

This creates a large vertical “spike� or “step� in the rotational PE of the temporarily stationary weight, just as if the energy had been added from outside.

This “switching� or adding of external rotational PE acts exactly the same as the child on the playground swing adds rotational PE at the extremity of each swing – when the swing is at a stop.

The child only adds this rotational PE when the swing is at a complete halt. Trying to add this energy at any other time requires work, fighting both the weight of the legs plus the increase due to CF. Totally conservative and explains why the child never does it this way. The child is not interested in
a conservative response!

This process is the identical scenario to our proposed full rotational mechanism as the adding/shifting of rotational PE in the child’s case comes from outside the dynamics of the single inertial system of the simple pendulum formed by the swing and child that does not interact with the swing.

We see the gain in energy comes from the interplay between two otherwise separate inertial systems, at the instants when the swing is stopped.

The inertial system represented by the child only operates (switches) at the exact instant when the primary mechanism - the swing - is an open system as defined by the first law of thermodynamics.

Our proposed mechanism then becomes a mathematical superset of the child’s playground swing and can be much more powerful than the swing as we can engineer a much higher difference ratio in rotational PE being added.

The child has only a very limited amount of rotational PE to manipulate but if not careful can soon find himself gaining much more altitude than he bargained for!

In our proposed superset of the child's swing, all of JB's clues fall into place in complete harmony with no puzzle pieces missing or left over. Except for that one about the springs. Maybe these were just used to attach the weights.
Last edited by cloud camper on Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:04 am, edited 14 times in total.
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: A perpetual MOTION wheel ?

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Ralph,
Good luck with your experiments, I will let you know if I close loop when I get the Geo Genny push over wheel finished , and if I find something of use!
With much respect Trevor
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

re: A perpetual MOTION wheel ?

Post by eccentrically1 »

cloudcamper wrote:No, this newly created rotational PE can only come from a separate non-rotating system that creates the rotational PE in the background,
Could you clarify that?
pequaide
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1311
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:30 pm

re: A perpetual MOTION wheel ?

Post by pequaide »

I am a few pages back: but I will post anyway.

Let 12 o’clock be 360°. That makes 10 seconds after 12 o’clock 359°. Sine of 90° from the horizontal (360°) is 1. Sin of 89° from the horizontal (359°) is .9998477. In a one meter radius vertical wheel the wheel must turn an unattached mass at 360° through .1523 vertical mm or .0001523 m before gravity can take it away from the inside of the circle of the wheel.

Gravity will cause something to fall through .000152305 meters in .00557234 seconds (d = ½ a*t*t); which is one degree in .00557 seconds; or one rotation in (360 * .00557234) 2.0060 seconds or 29.9 RPM.

This concurs with Jim-mich's post.

rasselasss is correct that an object on the end of a string will rotate much faster than this, but that is because gravity accelerates the mass on the end of a string; because it is a pendulum. A 1 meter radius pendulum must be moving at least 6.26 m/sec at the 6 o’clock position for it to rise two meters. This is about 1 RPS or 60 RPM; so the pendulum must move faster than a balanced wheel. But there is the difference; we are talking about a balanced wheel not a pendulum. A balanced wheel has a uniform rate of rotation; a pendulum does not.

Half way (rough estimate of average RPM) between 29.9 and 60 is 45. So if you experiment with a mass on the end of a string you might expect 50 RPM to work but not 40.

Please substitute loose for loss in my last post; thanks.

My interest in this is that if a certain rpm will hold a loose object inside the wheel then it will throw the object if it were on the outside. Thanks raj and Jim
Post Reply