BesslerWheel.com

[nicbordeaux]

In this old vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bA1_ykIKw8 there is a OB weight which is drilled at the edge, and the hole is not straight. Therefore, it is free to rotate only a number of degrees before it rubs against the wheel. The reason the OB weight is dropping and as Fletcher put it "Trading height for width" is that the nut/bolt holding it upright comes unwound (unbolted) during rotation. In fact, at point where it is most needed. The reason it unwinds is because there is a "jolt" on the decleration.

If one were to want to build this properly, a straight drilling with a free to revolve weight associated with a slight inclined chip on the actual wheel would produce the same effect. But would be repeatable. Which does not mean that there would be enough energy to reset that silly little semi-rotating OB weight. Maybe a heavy weight driver on the wheel added to this rotary mishap, with some sort of form or shape at about 12.30 through 1 allowing the OB driver to push forward over a more protracted time would allow full reset of the weight, which would have full potential from 1 onwards. Would the flip or rotating weight have enough effect to pull from wherever the wheel starting at 1 ends up through 12 ? I have a feeling it would. But I'm darned if I can be bothered to work it out and build it.

This does lead to another idea which did show promise but got waylaid as other ideas cropped up : a wheel wound weak spring which removes little energy and thus affects rotation not too much can release and kick at 11. Or a spring at 11 could profit from that deceleration jolt via some object impacting it.

Anyway, lessons are 1) never drill a straight hole if you can avoid it, because everything will behave normally and normality get's you nowhere in the mad quest for PM; 2) there is a deceleration jolt at 6 and 11 (11 because the darned OB wheels only reach 11) which must be where you can get what energy you need from.

_________________
If in doubt, make it bigger. If it doesn't work, make it even bigger, then claim that you lack funds to make it big enough to work.

[nicbordeaux]

I note with mild interest that as of today 09:19 CET 4 votes have been cast, 3 of which show that there are some totally clueless people out there. 75% of guys who haven't a clue isn't too bad, some hope remains for humanity.

[daxwc]

Why offer a poll if you don’t like the results after?

_________________
"Never argue with an idiot, because they will only bring you down to their level and beat you by experience."- John Guerrero

Wile E. Coyote - super genius; “I like the way that rolls out”

[nicbordeaux]

Because I enjoy being disapointed by humanity, and comforted in my view that it is not worth saving .

[daxwc]

Would it not be better to just give us your ingenious vague concept and pat your own back, then claim all patent rights?

I would imagine the clueless people would differ.

Hmm... Humanity = dumb idea; a discussion all in itself.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Nick,

it is not the hole it is the timing of the fling you should be looking at, there is something in your experiment that needs a closer look!

Regards Trevor

_________________
I think our main differences is you see it as a physics problem, and I see it as a mechanical problem!
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!

[Richard]

Trading height for width makes an OB wheel impossible...It does and can not make a wheel system impossible.

I,ve stated this before..A wheel on an infinite inclined plane will roll forever because of the system...that system is One wheel and one inclined plane.

_________________
where man meets science and god meets man never the twain shall meet...till god and man and science sit at gods great judgement seat..a tribute to Bessler....kipling I think

[daxwc]

Someone needs to show proof beyond a doubt of even the slightest energy gain or we all have to suffer waiting till the last white dog is hung.

[nicbordeaux]

[daxwc]

nicbordeaux Quote:

[murilo]

Nic,
the black disk falls free and at longer radius, while in opposite rises also at free velocity BUT at shorter radius - or less counter force.
If the fall could be 'built' at short radius... no way to met 12h.
Best!
M

[nicbordeaux]

Daxwc, you are no doubt a lovable guy with a rich social life, but you are getting confused here.

Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, did I claim that this vid showed PM, overunity, energy creation or destruction, personal fulfillment, a road to riches, a promise of afterlife, or else.

All I say is that by drilling a off-center hole in a weight that was meant to be used in conjunction with another set of weights and which was drilled so that it could be tightened in various "off the wheel" positions, the event shown in the vid occurred. The weight slid at just the right moment to draw or drag the wheel through 12. Obviously it is height loss for width gain, I said that. As such, it is not unity, meaning 360° w/o loss of mass height.

I will repeat : the weight slid because as it is eccentric slightly to wheel, a full contact patch is not existant, therefore there is slippage under quite mild force exerted on it.

It may be of interest that the same event could be made repeatable by having a small protusion on the wheel which recreates the small contact patch. If this protusion were to be wedge shaped, or spring retractable upon pressure exerted on it (escamotable if anybody wants to know what escamotable means).

Finally, there is a remote chance that if after the weight pulls the wheel and itself through 12, there was a protusion on the wheel stand which would make the weight rise again to initial height under the force generated by the natural tendancy of the actual wheel to descend, and that this event occurred slowly because of some "brake" by the protusion slowing the wheel (this is not the same protusion as the one mentionned initially), from 12h30 thru 1 the weight might possibly be reset.

The video shows what it shows. Nada mas.

And with that I am off to beat up peq.

[path_finder]

Dear nicbordeaux,

For compensate the small gap missing when the weight reaches the upper position, there is a very simple solution (already suggested here earlier): move the main axis within a distance equal to this gap in view to reposition the weight at 12:00 of the wheel.
Like here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4oFQqCJLwg
This suppose the main axis itself is located on the rim of a rotating disk.

When the musician is to far from the keyboard, there are two ways for correct the position.
The first and common one, is to move the chair.
The second is to push the back of the piano.

This is the reason why I voted 'other'.

_________________
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...

[Richard]

Nic your understanding of physics and mechanical certainly leaves me far behind...more importantly I take no offence in you mentioning that..

It has been a while since I've posted that I learn from such as your self and others here on the forum.

...please try to recognize that I bring to this forum a considerable amount of mechanical experience and intuitiveness and though not expressed in terms some would understand, it can prove valuable.

The same Einstein that you mention in correcting me is the same guy who said that matter particle conversion is done without loss of mass over time.

It was fair of me to post that in your other thread as an answer to the way you employed "CoE" because both are relative to both the systems and frame of reference they are viewed in.

[nicbordeaux]

Richard, most definitely not trying to correct you, that would be rich :)

Just mentionning things as I (probably wrongly) understand them. Ref the thread mentionned, moving a lot of mass with a small mass does seem a little against the law, but it can be done. Unfortunately all the energy can be accounted for.