Spring on a lever

[preoccupied]

This is a spring on a lever that continually overbalances a wheel.

At the bottom right of the picture the weight moves from a 45 degree position to a vertical position. The spring is only strong enough to pull on the weight when it's on the lever at 45 degrees. This is the special property of the design. The spring has weakness and is only strong enough to pull by the weight when it's on the lever at 45 degrees. On the top left of the picture when the weight changes position the spring is not strong enough to hold it in place. This is because the spring is attached to the weight. or it should be drawn like that, this is a crude drawing... The weight free falls on the top left and is heavier than when it is balancing on the lever at 45 degrees on the bottom right where it is lighter and easier to move. Anyways this wheel remains continuously overbalanced until centrifugal force slows it down. Prove me wrong scallywags.

[preoccupied]

Am I being snubbed? Was it the scallywag comment? I was just being playful. I don't mean to insult anybody.

I think this is a really promising design. It's basically unbalanced constantly I think. It draws attention to the infinite leverage thing that would not be able to be shared because it would be able to be used to create weapons that could destroy planets. It's bad enough that I might have time travel duplicates that could become offended and destroy things like Sodom and Gomorrah or flood the Earth. That's another interesting trick that I don't want to share, creating matter from nothing mechanically. It could be used to reduce matter also. If I'm right then I'm very clever and so are my time travel duplicates like mad scientists. hahaha hahaha haha

[Tarsier79]

Looks like it will be balanced, but due to lag in rotation it will experience negative torque.

[preoccupied]

Looks like it will be balanced, but due to lag in rotation it will experience negative torque.

Well, I didn't know if this would work. The way that I've drawn it there are four weights on the right side and only two weights on the left side. Did I draw it wrong?

[preoccupied]

I drew the weights in their position at a 22.5 degree additional rotation.

The two bottom weights should basically cancel each other out. The top left weight should be about 0.38 distance out. The two weights on the far right are about 0.279 distance out, that's 0.558. The other two weights on the right are about 0.1259 and that's 0.2518. 0.2518+0.558=0.8091. The weight on the far left should be about 0.65 out. 0.38+0.65=1.03. So there is counter pressure of about 0.2 at 22.5 degrees. That's not very much. It might be able to push through the resistance with the torque it gained at the beginning.

[preoccupied]

This is something that I think you will really like.

Because of a gear ratio at the axle the blue lines pull the green lines with mechanical advantage and then the green springs force the wheel to turn faster. I made this improvement today when modifying the spring lever picture. It's not an infinite leverage device but it shares similarities with Yahweh's crowbar dolly. The falling levers aren't attached to the wheel, they are free falling and moving each other, the springs are attached to the wheel. It only touches the brown lines on the wheel and moves each other and the springs touch the wheel. Well I guess you have to use a little bit of imagination. I thin this is similar to Yahweh's way of thinking. The wheel is forced to turn faster while the weights continue to fall so it takes longer for the weights to fully fall. I came to this idea by trying to see what it would be like if I had one weight fall with the force of the spring pulling it down and the other weight fall with the force of the spring holding it back some. Then I added a gear ratio to the axle so that the difference could interact and I concluded that the spring pulling it down wasn't necessary but the spring holding it back some had a purpose with the gear ratio.

[preoccupied]

I think that I got my gear ratio reversed in the picture. I think that the smaller green circle is supposed to be larger and the larger blue circle is supposed to be smaller. Lets see let me think this out in my head. The small circle circumference is smaller... No wait I have to draw a smaller circle attached to a larger circle to do it and then the small circle attaches to the small circle on the other gear when then turns the larger circle attached to it faster.

[preoccupied]

I think this might be correct unless I got it right the first time. I'm not understanding gears right now. I am having a serious brain fart. I will get back to you on this.

[preoccupied]

I was close. The small gear attaches to another big gear.

[Tarsier79]

The way that I've drawn it there are four weights on the right side and only two weights on the left side. Did I draw it wrong?

In my opinion yes. For a start look at the 12:00 arm. It has some spring tension, but falls straight down. Alternatively, the 4:30 weight has enough strength to pull the weight up when it probably shouldn't. Your two weights on the left are much further out than the 4 weights on the right.

P. you should buy some springs and play with them. Attach them to arms and see what is and isn't possible. Build yourself a test wheel, it doesn't need to be too big. You can test mechanisms with cardboard, paddle pop sticks, bamboo or meccano.

[preoccupied]

The weight at 4:30 is meant to be in the position that the spring can pull it up vertically. It won't do it instantaneously. So the weight on the lever should weigh 0.707 so the spring needs to be strong enough to hold 0.707 of a weight. Does that mean that at the top left the spring will hold it there at 45 degrees too? That would reduce some of the starting torque. It might be one of those wheels that starts out with some torque but then loses it all before it turns over. If so then why not move on to my new method inspired by Egyptian engineer Yahweh's crowbar dolly?

What exactly is happening with my newest picture? A weight falls and a gear train pulls on a spring that pulls on the wheel. Bessler said weights acted in pairs. Maybe he didn't mean that two weights were used in one mechanism. Maybe he meant that weights on the falling side of the wheel happened in pairs. There is about enough room for two weights to fall 90 degrees on the right side of the wheel if there were multiple of my picture every 45 degrees a hit would land. Because if my picture had another of it 45 degrees earlier that weight would be positioned vertically and hasn't been able to fall yet. So this wheel if I had it split up into 45 degree intervals would have two weights falling on the right side of the wheel at once. Weights would act in pairs. This might be Bessler's wheel boys. WE DID IT.

[preoccupied]

It would look something like this.

If we take Bessler's famous ratio 4:1 on the gear train then the spring might be able to produce about 4 units of force on the wheel which is more than the 3 weights on the left side of the wheel...

[preoccupied]

Some of Bessler's clues that this design matches is the peacocks tail. I've heard of that. The left side of the wheel is a big peacocks tail. The weights line up against each other on the bottoms. Weights come to be lined up against each other one by one. I've heard of that. Springs were employed but not as detractors suggest. It's pretty vague but it applies. Weights worked in pairs. I guess this vaguely does that. On the right side of the wheel only two weights fall at once. They don't directly interact with each other but only two weights are driving the wheel at a time. I like this design. What would you do if I found Bessler's Wheel? Would you freak? Freak out! We should have a party because we finally found Bessler's wheel, If we did here. Any thoughts on my recent drawing? It's amazing. I am really proud of myself. I thought it through today too. Good thing I wasn't doing anything today and I could think about it. I bet if competent engineers rigorously investigated perpetual motion machines that stuff like this would have been found sooner (if I found it, really).

[preoccupied]

This is the picture that I posted on Twitter. It has the four to one gear ratio drawn on the picture. I think that a four to one gear ratio would work and that this might be Bessler's wheel because of it and the other clues. I guess Bessler's clues kind of happened after I discovered the design. I didn't use Bessler's clues to find the design, just to justify why it might be the same as his wheel. This is really creative though. Johann Bessler was a clever guy.

You know what this wheel is going to do? It's going to keep on rolling rolling rolling. We should party! Keep rolling rolling rolling. Any other wheel themed songs you know about? Party time. Celebrate!
Rollin'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYnFIRc0k6E

[preoccupied]

I'm surprised people aren't super excited about my wheel yet. I guess it hasn't been available long enough. Is it because I brought up the Egyptian Engineer Yahweh? I'm sorry for my time travel duplicates.

Well anyways, the cool thing I can see right now about my design is that it can have a lot of torque. Instead of just using a 4 to 1 gear ratio to make it functional, you could have a really tight gear ratio like 10 to 1. It should still drag on the wheel about the same amount of time but can produce incredible torque. I think you could even do 100 to 1 ratio. That could generate some serious electricity. Now don't get me wrong free electricity from gravity sounds like a cool idea but I think that we can't use it too much because I think it will cool the core of the planet. What if it does something retarded like offset Earth's orbit around the sun? Maybe we shouldn't use gravity wheels at all. If it wasn't for global warming I wouldn't even consider it.