My Other Build

[UbWe]

With this build I'm close to being finished with extending the tabs that are used to rotate the weighted levers. When a gear rack is used to stop
a tab from moving forward then the weighted lever will rotate as a result. I thought about extending all of the tabs to maintain the 3:2 ratio but
after doing the math, the ratio is off by about 4% which shouldn't make a noticeable difference.
For every 1 lb. of weight it should generate about 4 1/2 in.lbs. of torque. Gears can be used instead of the long tabs then it would be a more
compact design. I'd need a mill so the gears could be mounted within a close enough tolerance that they'd work like they're supposed to work.
I think I have everything I need to finish this build.With the tabs, some might need to be trimmed and shimmed so they're square/straight.

https://youtube.com/shorts/60RVKQBR1zM?feature=share

And the test that shows that a 3:2 leverage ratio for the weighted lever requires 7 1/2 in.lbs. of torque. With 3 weights overbalanced it will
generate about 12 in.lbs. of torque. It is possible I'll add more weight but it costs about $30 for 12lbs. of lead including shipping. And with 16
weights on 2 wheels it can get a little expensive.
https://youtube.com/shorts/JukjoI8C8vY?feature=share

I thought I'd remind everybody that Aldo Costa of France has built a working wheel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsBplmMDcRQ&t=11s

[UbWe]

The attached image shows the change I'm making to this build. When the tabs rotating the weighted levers were shorter, the
leverage ratio was about 3:1. And if the weight is 5 inches from the axis of rotation and weighs 1 lbs. then that's 5 in.lbs. of
torque. By extending the tabs to twice their length the ratio changes to 3:2. The difference is with a 3:1 ratio, it would take
15 in.lbs. of torque to rotate the lever. At a 3:2 ratio it takes only 7.5 in.lbs. of force to rotate it.
Why this matters is when the axis the weighted lever rotates on is (with what I'm building) about 20 inches from the axis of
rotation for the wheel, the lever being used to rotate the lever is basically counter-leveraging it like when using a counter-weight
on an elevator or bridge that opens. And the length of my levers are about 11 3/4 inches long. They actually need to be about
12 1/4 or 12 1/2 inches to maintain a 3:2 ratio. With the way they'll be mounted I'll be able to add a block to maintain that ratio.
Yet to be off by that much is only about a 4% loss in torque. That's where I have slowed down some since I am finishing up the
tab extensions which gave me time to consider Bessler's Wheel. And with using 3 clues, that's comparable to triangulating his
wheel, that is how position is found using cellphone towers. And then when people read his writings, they'll be free to form their
own opinion about what they mean.

[bruno]

Ho analizzato il tuo progetto tracciando semplici linee verticali partendo dai pesi; evidente il forte sbilanciamento! per me potrebbe funzionare a condizione che i movimenti dei pesi debbano avvenire nell'arco di meno di un ottavo; il rimanente spazio servirebbe a far si che la ruota abbia sbilanciamento sufficiente per avviare il secondo passaggio accelerando!
Complimenti e auguri da Bruno.

[Tarsier79]

Sorry Bruno. I think there is a little more to it than that. Look at how far the top weight has to be lifted.

[bruno]

Hai ragione, non ci avevo fatto caso! Spero per lui che la delusione non sia troppo grande.
Buona giornata da Bruno.

[UbWe]

Ho analizzato il tuo progetto tracciando semplici linee verticali partendo dai pesi; evidente il forte sbilanciamento! per me potrebbe funzionare a condizione che i movimenti dei pesi debbano avvenire nell'arco di meno di un ottavo; il rimanente spazio servirebbe a far si che la ruota abbia sbilanciamento sufficiente per avviare il secondo passaggio accelerando!
Complimenti e auguri da Bruno.

Bruno, il peso superiore richiederà una rotazione di 70º della ruota affinché il peso ruoti di 180º. Ciò che le persone non capiscono del moto perpetuo è che un peso può generare una coppia mentre viene sollevato/ruotato.

[UbWe]

Getting close to being finished with the tab extensions. They'll be 11 3/4 inches (29.8cm) long while their axis of rotation is 18 inches (45.7cm) from
the axis of the wheel. This gives a ratio of 11.75/18 = 1.53:1. Then when the CoG of the weight is 5 inches (12.5cm), multiply that torque by the
ratio of 1.53:1 and then the energy required to rotate the weight will be made known.
At the same time, as the weight is rotating, before top center it is decreasing it's distance from the y axis which means less counter torque and
then when past top center (to the right of the y axis) it will add to the torque the overbalanced side has. I think this is obvious. Then again I have
taken the time to consider the math. This goes back to my post about the frame of the wheel being the field and then all 8 weights have a union
with the field.
If the tabs were 1/4 inch (6.5cm) longer then they would've allowed for a 3:2 leverage. What this ratio means is that for the torque an overbalanced
weight will generate, it take 150% of that torque. As the wheel is being built, the wheel will generate 150% of the torque required to rotate a weight
or about 2/3rds of the torque generated by the wheel will be for rotating a weight. And with what the weight being rotated adds to the overbalance
then it should be a more favorable ratio.

[Tarsier79]

Bruno, the top weight will require a 70º rotation of the wheel for the weight to rotate 180º. What people don't understand about perpetual motion is that a weight can generate torque as it is lifted/rotated.

Correct. The problem is the torque is the wrong way, and the energy required equals the torque x distance you receive from OB. This is basically the first lesson to be learnt in PM.... Again, if your math says 0 through a complete cycle, your math is correct. (And this is if friction =0)

[UbWe]

Bruno, the top weight will require a 70º rotation of the wheel for the weight to rotate 180º. What people don't understand about perpetual motion is that a weight can generate torque as it is lifted/rotated.

Correct. The problem is the torque is the wrong way, and the energy required equals the torque x distance you receive from OB. This is basically the first lesson to be learnt in PM.... Again, if your math says 0 through a complete cycle, your math is correct. (And this is if friction =0)

Says the person who claims to be right. Doesn't it make things easier when you have someone who supports you because you're defending their credibility? It is like I am a "fraud" because I show my work or my math is wrong when my mistake has not been shown. I'll show the flaw in your logic;

the energy required equals the torque x distance you receive from OB

You actually believe this? You made 2 different statements. The people who understand this will understand why my build could work and why I am building it and not you.

p.s., Since I have both builds in my home and have done numerous tests which is research and development, I do think both builds will work.
And when I have taken the time to relearn math I knew and then to learn more math, it is because I saw where the definition that scientists
gave was an argument using faulty logic. An example of this is that the Moon conserves the Earth's momentum = mv.
And when we consider mv = 1/2mv^2 = KE, scientists will say that gravity has no energy and yet I just proved that the Moon orbiting the Earth
is conserving the Earth's KE. And when people keep saying it can't work is a symptom of OCD. To quote scientists;

A genuine perpetual motion machine – one that will run indefinitely without an external source of energy to power it – is not possible as it violates the laws of thermodynamics. https://royalsociety.org/blog/2018/09/perpetual-motion/

And now thanks to the Royal Society, we know perpetual motion is impossible. When this is constantly repeated ad nauseum in a perpetual
motion forum, isn't that OCD?

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Overview

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a common, chronic, and long-lasting disorder in which a person has uncontrollable, reoccurring thoughts ("obsessions") and/or behaviors ("compulsions") that he or she feels the urge to repeat over and over.
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/ ... sorder-ocd

More proof that perpetual motion is impossible, from MIT;
Is it possible to construct a perpetual motion machine?

Short answer: No. For details, we must begin with Sir Isaac Newton…
By Jason M. Rubin

In the late 1600s, Sir Isaac Newton penned a famous law: “Every body remains in a state of constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force.” The first part of the sentence (up to “velocity”) suggests that perpetual motion is not only possible but inevitable for any object already in motion. The second part of Newton’s first law of motion, however, throws a wrench in the process. As it turns out, “external unbalanced forces” — non-zero net forces outside applied to the object by another object — are everywhere in our universe.

Dan Frey, an associate professor of Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Systems, explains it this way: “If you take a metal washer and put it on the end of a string and start it swinging, it goes back and forth but eventually it stops. This is because of friction with the air. A playground swing is a different kind of pendulum,” he notes, “but you can keep it going by pumping your legs. If you could pump forever, you would swing forever; but once you remove that energy, you soon stop. Perpetual motion requires an initial force and a sustaining force.” https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask- ... n-machine/

From the University of Houston;
No. 33:
PERPETUAL MOTION

by John H. Lienhard

Click here for audio of Episode 33.

Today, we look for perpetual motion. The University of Houston's College of Engineering presents this series about the machines that make our civilization run, and the people whose ingenuity created them.

When we talk about a perpetual motion machine, we usually mean a machine that produces power without being fed an even greater amount of power in a different form -- say an engine that produces electrical energy without eating up even more energy in the form of coal. For 140 years we've all agreed on thermodynamic laws that tell us that that sort of machine can't exist. https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi33.htm

The "experts" have spoken. Saying a perpetual wheel cannot work shows no intelligence.

[JUBAT]

>The "experts" have spoken. Saying a perpetual wheel >cannot work shows no intelligence.

Yet they are right. So do you know how I know that? Show me a working wheel.

[Tarsier79]

the energy required equals the torque x distance you receive from OB

You actually believe this? You made 2 different statements. The people who understand this will understand why my build could work and why I am building it and not you.

Energy is directly related to work. I thought I wouldn't need to spell it out to anyone remotely proficient at math.

I have no reason to build your design. It definitely wont work. You will see when you build it, but you won't understand why. If you did understand why, you would also understand why your last build doesn't work. You were just as confident then that you had a runner, and had the math to prove that as well.

We all know the definition of madness...

However, enjoy building.

[Fletcher]

Work Energy Equivalence Theorem/Principle ..

...............

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html

..............

Above for linear motion, scroll down for angular motion ..

[UbWe]

the energy required equals the torque x distance you receive from OB

You actually believe this? You made 2 different statements. The people who understand this will understand why my build could work and why I am building it and not you.

Energy is directly related to work. I thought I wouldn't need to spell it out to anyone remotely proficient at math.

I have no reason to build your design. It definitely wont work. You will see when you build it, but you won't understand why. If you did understand why, you would also understand why your last build doesn't work. You were just as confident then that you had a runner, and had the math to prove that as well.

We all know the definition of madness...

However, enjoy building.

I did save thx4's thread. It was about discussing Mt 21. The build you're talking about might work with tapered roller bearings. At the same
time why are people who do not build or discuss Bessler's work allowed to attack me? My posts shows I am pursuing Bessler's work as well
as my own. When the people who have literally no work to show attack me, I consider it is because I am 1/2 Norwegian.
You guys keep saying the same things that Nazis said to Norwegians in WW II. Bessler was arrested when accused of being a fraud and I
was banned when I was accused of being a fraud. Why is it a problem if I want to pursue Bessler's Wheel so I can have surgery? What was it
Alan Bauldree said? He won't let me use cancer as a shield. And you guys won't let me use surgery as a shield.
Myself, I think it's just a simple case of white supremacy. You guys are "pure" English speakers and I'm not. And if I am successful then you
can't talk about how you're better than I am. That is what is being posted, I have to understand that you guys are better than me even tough
you have no work to show.
And this is the definition of being passive/aggressive;
We all know the definition of madness...

However, enjoy building.

How would you expect me to enjoy building when that is why I am attacked and considered insane? And yet in all these years, what have
you guys learned? Simply nothing. You know nothing more than you did 15 years ago. That's gotta suck to know you spent 15 years of your
lives doing nothing but growing older. At least I have things I can look forward to like pursuing more work with gravity. I do wonder though if
I might get this same reaction when pointing out Newton's and Einstein's mistakes. I've had people take issue with me for saying that we work
with the latest understanding of science. When I say this;
Astronomers discover new link between dark matter and clumpiness of the universe
June 14, 2023
Source:
University of Toronto
Summary:
Researchers reveal a theoretical breakthrough that may explain both the nature of invisible dark matter and the large-scale structure of the universe known as the cosmic web. The result establishes a new link between these two longstanding problems in astronomy, opening new possibilities for understanding the cosmos. The research suggests that the 'clumpiness problem,' which centres on the unexpectedly even distribution of matter on large scales throughout the cosmos, may be a sign that dark matter is composed of hypothetical, ultra-light particles called axions. The implications of proving the existence of hard-to-detect axions extend beyond understanding dark matter and could address fundamental questions about the nature of the universe itself.

Axions might be a variation of neutrinos. And yet both Newton's and Einstein's work might help researchers to better understand it (dark matter).
And when I correct Newton's and Einstein's work while pointing to research like that, they might thank me. They'll need to accept that g = Gm1m2/r^2
was factored wrong by Newton. And I'll be able to say that Newton didn't consider the universe to be composed of dark matter. How to get original work right the first time, right? Newton had no one who could proof his work and then if space is empty, how can it act on 2 masses with twice the force
that's acting on it? And this is where Newton's work was ahead of its time.
Still, I thought Bessler might be common ground because I doubt you guys can discuss theoretical physics. And to give you context Tarsier,
f = ma = mv = 1/2mv^2 = KE might become known as my theorem. This is because I'll be proving that gravity has energy. This requires dark
matter to have mass. And then my "theorem" might become comparable to Planck's E = hv which allowed for Einstein's relativity.
You see, my theorem proves dark matter has mass and energy. And what supports that is Newton's work on gravity which specifically speaking is
g = Gm/r^2. That shows a basic, fundamental change in the energy which creates gravity. Science is my "safe place". Hopefully you'll understand
that I might become quite famous in science when I keep getting distracted from learning Calculus 1 and 2.
And when I asked about doing a mathematical analysis of Mt 21 with thx4, that could help people to understand that when it comes to perpetual
motion that math helps. This is because by making small changes to Mt 21 might allow it to work. Basically speaking, physics is the natural order
of things while engineering perverts science. With thermodynamics, momentum can dictate thermodynamics but is usually ignored, hence
perverting the natural order of things.

[UbWe]

Work Energy Equivalence Theorem/Principle ..

...............

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html

..............

Above for linear motion, scroll down for angular motion ..

With my Bessler build, the top and bottom weights will be lifted over 90º of rotation. +/- 45º. The top and bottom weights cancel
each other out. What happens with the other 90º of rotation? This diagram shows that.

p.s., and it looks strangely familiar to Mt 21 which thx4 posted. Considering the math behind that might help people in here who don't
know math to get familiar with it.

[UbWe]

Everyone I think has seen the views and likes from my other thread. With this build I am extending the tabs. Gears are simpler but
I don't have a way to add gears that I'd be comfortable with. While Bessler lifted his weights, with this concept rotation is the key.
The video that got noticed; https://youtube.com/shorts/JukjoI8C8vY?feature=share
That is why I changed the length of the tabs which is a lot of work. There are 96 tabs that have to be modified. And one build leaves time
for nothing else. A second build just isn't possible yet I am doing it. I'm glad I don't have to be concerned with other things, that'd be more
than enough. Maybe even too much?
With this build of mine, I might've invented my own lock out mechanisms. The tabs need to be held in the overbalanced position until after
it passes BDC. Then it will rotate in the opposite direction. If I increase traffic in here then I might as well mention both of my projects.

p.s., if you notice, that was the only weight overbalanced. I did have lead weights placed on it so I would know how much torque is necessary
for it to rotate. This is where math helps to me to understand what I need to do so it might work.