Good night and Good Luck.

[Michael]

Well folks IÂ’m finished with the search for all of this. ItÂ’s time for me to move on. IÂ’ll keep checking in here when I can, I havenÂ’t lost interest in the posts made by people. As for me though, IÂ’ve come to the conclusion that this is something thatÂ’s not going to work out for me. There was a model/theory that IÂ’ve been working on since October and I was so sure it would work. The mechanics, although somewhat complicated were also beautiful because everything worked so very well. There is one and only one problem area. HereÂ’s an illustration. What I needed for this to work, basically, was a weight which had rotational inertia to come off at the 12.00 position and to be replaced with a free falling weight starting itÂ’s drop at that same position. Since it can be shown that a free falling weight accelerates much faster than a rotational weight moving slowly, I assumed that I would be able to make this work. Unfortunately/ or fortunately for that matter, working model showed me the situation I was building was losing energy. I knew the device would lose some energy and it would still work if the velocity was reduced to 80 percent of what it initially had. If it did there is a part of the cycle where the device re energizes and there would have been more than enough to give it that extra energy and move the device to a velocity faster than itÂ’s velocity before the loss. Checking it through working model showed me that the device went down to about 83 percent of itÂ’s initial velocity. I thought great, this proves it will work. Then I started to realize it might not because I was only measuring the velocity change from the 12.00 position to the 3.00 oÂ’clock position. When I cut this up into smaller segments so I was measuring from the 2.5 - 3.00 oÂ’clock position I saw that the velocity was actually cut down to about 70 percent. Folks this is why it is very important when you do measuring that you measure where it counts, and most importantly that you use kinetic energy rules and not just velocities. A 70 percent velocity loss is equal to just over a 50 percent loss in energy. Anything under a 50 percent loss in energy would have worked for me. A 50 percent loss just balances for the situation I was working on. I want to leave some tools that might help others in their search.

Use working model. It saved me months of work. You donÂ’t need to learn to use all of the fancy measuring tools. For most testing all you need to do is create a base model and your test model, and use the time menu. A base model is one that would show you the minimum amount of energy your device must maintain to keep running. For example- a flywheel, or a pendulum dropping to itÂ’s maximum velocity, or just a weight dropping. You base your measurements on velocity and time. So, all you need to do it create this base model, start it and use the time menu and time how long it takes the base model to move from point A to point B. Then run your test model. As long as the time length of your test model fits the time length of the base model, you know your okay.

Use kinetic energy calculations. Very important. Remember a 50 percent loss in velocity equals a quadruple energy loss.

Here is how gravity works. It might help a few people in determining how much energy a weight has, or how far it will travel in certain circumstances.

Basically gravity acceleration is roughly 32.18 feet per second. This does not mean that every second the weight will have traveled 32.18 feet per second. IE: First second weight has traveled 32.18. Second second weight has traveled 64.36 plus the initial 32.18 in the first second for a total of 96.54 feet. This is not how it works.

This is how it works. In the first second the weight has only traveled 16.09 feet but at the end of that second it has the velocity of 32.18 feet a second. In the second second the weight has traveled an additional 48.27 feet for a total of 64.36 feet and has a velocity of 64.36 feet a second. In the third second the weight has traveled an additional 80.45 feet for a total of 144.81 feet and has a velocity of 96.54 feet a second.
This is what you do. Determine how many seconds there are going to be for the free fall. LetÂ’s say 3 seconds. Take 32.18 ( for gravitational acceleration rate ) and multiply it by 3. We get 96.54. This is the velocity of the weight after the 3 second drop. Multiply this number again by 3. We get 289.64. Now divide this by 2. We get 144.81. This is how many feet the weight has fallen in the three second time period.

So, rate of acceleration, times length of time, times length of time, divided by 2.

You can use this to find anything from how far a weight will go, to how fast it will be going, to how much energy a weight that is already moving has and what it is capable of.

With all of the discussion of 1/4 a weight moving a full weight a full distance I haven't seen anyone discusss that what Bessler might have meant was a 1/4 weight moving at double the speed of a full weight. When a weight that is 1/4 the mass of another weight moves at double the velocity of the full weight, it has the same amount of energy as the full weight and so it is capable of balancing with it. Distance is irrelevent, it's the velocity that is important.

I'm opening my board to everyone on Bessler wheel as it has tried to deal with the kinetic energy issue.

[Fletcher]

Many thanks Michael, most of us will still be here when you check in from time to time. Ideas will still come to you but perhaps with less frequency. Whether you choose to pursue them will be the difficult question but at least for a while you can get off this insane treadmill & take a break & recharge the batteries ;)

[1712]

Michael, you are a wise man.

Contra

[ken_behrendt]

Michael...

I was saddened to read that you will no longer be a "regular" on this Discussion Board. You've certainly provided some interesting alternative insights into the Bessler material in the past. Please do return whenever you think you have something of interest to share. You will always find an interested audience here.

From reading what you were working on, it is apparent to me that you embraced an approach to the solution of the mystery that would have used variations in velocities, accelerations, etc. to somehow allow the wheel to extract some extra kinetic energy that it could then output to its environment to perform useful work. I'm sorry to hear that your research was not fruitful...but, that tends to be the norm for all mobilists since Bessler.

Obviously, your approach is a deviation from the more simpler method that I try to promote...that is, to just concentrate on finding a mechanism that will keep the CG of the wheel located on its descending side as it rotates. The attainment of that condition can, of course, be complicated by wheel rotation rate, CF, etc. My philosophy, at the moment, is to just concentrate first on maintaining an imbalance and worry about the other factors later.


ken

[Michael]

Thanks for the good thoughts everyone. Fletcher this is something I will probably nerver fully give up, I know my mind will always return to it in some way. I'm a bit of a perfectionist too and I always recheck the same paths just to make sure I haven't missed anything. Just today I found myself drifting back there. Anyway I am redirecting my energies. There is an adventure board game I am developing and am exited about so that's where I am going.

[Tinhead]

Adventure board game .... COOOOOOL :)
Hero Quest, Talisman, etc. style? I offer myself as test player *throw 2d6* >>> HIT <<<

Wish you all the best for your new 'project', PLEASE do not create ANY quests related to any kind of wheel ;)

Cheers,
Rainer

[Michael]

Thanks Rainer. I might take you up on that.

[Sevich]

Michael... have you seen the movie called "The Firm" .....starring Tom Cruise ?

well then, you'll know that membership is for life.....No escape where ever you go! (don't fight it)

[winkle]

Michael

good luck with you're board game

expect to see you visiting sooner rather than later

it's an addiction you know

best to you to you

[Michael]

Lol! And the pullback is all done by psychic mind power.

[MrTim]

Don't worry Michael, you'll be back. (They always come back ;)
Taking a break from it all is a good idea. You'll be surprised about finding things when you aren't even looking for them.
And good luck with the game! I design miniatures games myself, so I'll give you the best piece of advice on the subject (one that I never seem to follow myself ;) Finish one game before you start designing another!
Good luck, and laters, dude....
:)

[Sevich]

Michael....... no idea as to why you've upgraded to your nice latest avatar if you're not going to be here long enough to show it off with further postings? .....a total wast, I say?!

Can you at least stay for the flame wars?

:D

[graham]

Michaels farewell:

Well folks IÂ’m finished with the search for all of this. ItÂ’s time for me to move on.

Nah, I don't buy this at all, not from Michael. Maybe you were just having a bad day.

I have been in the group for over two years now and have seen members come and go . Most of those that "go" just seem to fade away unless of course they were banned.
I may just fade away eventually , but curiosity keeps me coming back to check out the competition.

There was of course Johnathan who out of the blue said goodbye and meant it . He was a megaposter , "King of the Hill" and I miss his presence in the threads.
There are others whom I would miss were they to say goodbye or just fade away.
So Michael , we'll be looking out for you.

Forgive my ramblings.

Graham

[Michael]

Hi Guys. Thanks again. No like I said I won't competely go away, I'm just giving up my own personal search for perpetual motion. Which will actually make me a better poster on this board because there were some things I couldn't talk about before since I was working with them. That also being said I won't be as regular on here as I once was.

[coylo]

Good luck with whatever comes your way, Michael!

"What's meant for you never passes."