True. Bessler also stipulated that his wheel was not powered by wound-up springs or lifted weights as might be commonly used in clocks and other automata.daxwc wrote:Only that everything was contained within the wheel.ovyyus wrote:How did Bessler define fraud?
Center of gravity used as a motive force?
Moderator: scott
re: Center of gravity used as a motive force?
-
Jim Williams
- Aficionado
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: San Francisco
re: Center of gravity used as a motive force?
Just to get on my own nerves, I looked up IPC to US classification concordance for "alleged perpetua mobilia" (IPC F03B17/04). I found USPTO doesn't have one, but skips from F03B17/02 to F03B17/06. They couldn't have put 415/916 as it's a cross-reference only. USPTO, unlike EPO, just doesn't have one so far.
(F03B)17 / 02 to USPTO class 60 subclass 495 - 496
(F03B)17 / 06 to USPTO class 60 subclass 640
(F03B)17 / 02 to USPTO class 60 subclass 495 - 496
(F03B)17 / 06 to USPTO class 60 subclass 640
re: Center of gravity used as a motive force?
My ideas keep getting shot down. But that's ok. I am learning. I think this next one probably won't work either then, since it is along the same line, but different enough that I will throw it out there and let folks rip on it for a while.
I have had a couple different thoughts with this one, so will describe one with a picture, and the other without, since I haven't drawn it yet.
First, eight sets of two gears that interact with each other, radiating out from the hub like spokes on a wheel. One is large with a small weight on it. The other is small with a larger weight.There are stops on the large gear so that it can only turn 180 degrees, so either the weight is at the top, or at the bottom, depending on where it is in the rotation of the wheel. The rotation of the wheel causes the weight to fall (gear to turn). Because it is the larger gear, even though it has a smaller weight, it will rotate the smaller gear and lift a larger weight against gravity to a position near the rim when the two gears are at the 12:00 position. (And again at 6:00) You end up with two equal amounts of weight on opposite sides of the wheel, but on one side the larger weight is always closer to the rim.
This is the one in my crappy drawing.
I also had the thought that you could have the LARGER gear with a very LARGE weight on it rotating the weight out to the rim and away from the rim, and a smaller gear with a small weight on it doing the rotating IF the smaller gear (closer to the hub this time) was turned 90 degrees, and the activation point was at the 9:00 and 3:00 positions rather than at 12:00 and 6:00. There is no weight to lift against gravity at this point, and all you need is enough weight falling to rotate the other gear. Much less "work" to do. But the weight would rotate in much closer to the hub in this configuration and give more of an overbalance.
That's my idea for today.
I have had a couple different thoughts with this one, so will describe one with a picture, and the other without, since I haven't drawn it yet.
First, eight sets of two gears that interact with each other, radiating out from the hub like spokes on a wheel. One is large with a small weight on it. The other is small with a larger weight.There are stops on the large gear so that it can only turn 180 degrees, so either the weight is at the top, or at the bottom, depending on where it is in the rotation of the wheel. The rotation of the wheel causes the weight to fall (gear to turn). Because it is the larger gear, even though it has a smaller weight, it will rotate the smaller gear and lift a larger weight against gravity to a position near the rim when the two gears are at the 12:00 position. (And again at 6:00) You end up with two equal amounts of weight on opposite sides of the wheel, but on one side the larger weight is always closer to the rim.
This is the one in my crappy drawing.
I also had the thought that you could have the LARGER gear with a very LARGE weight on it rotating the weight out to the rim and away from the rim, and a smaller gear with a small weight on it doing the rotating IF the smaller gear (closer to the hub this time) was turned 90 degrees, and the activation point was at the 9:00 and 3:00 positions rather than at 12:00 and 6:00. There is no weight to lift against gravity at this point, and all you need is enough weight falling to rotate the other gear. Much less "work" to do. But the weight would rotate in much closer to the hub in this configuration and give more of an overbalance.
That's my idea for today.
- Attachments
-