This is my wheel concept 2017, not Bessler's 1717...

[sleepy]

According to a recent post of yours in community buzz, you said you have a runner! I'm assuming this is the wheel you are referring to. I have seen several designs similar to this and I spent a few weeks working on an amazingly similar design in the 90's. It came down to each weight only supplying "push" for about 40 degrees. The rest of the rotation was spent either supplying counter torque or being neutral. I piled on arms and weights figuring more units would eventually topple everything sooner to create rotation. I was wrong. It had the same problem I think FCdriver is up against.Down fast and up slow ends up with the weight in the drive position never moving the wheel quite far enough to start the next reaction. If you have found a way around this,and you indeed have a runner,then congratulations on your success! But I feel like you're jumping the gun based on what looked like a sure thing.

[raj]

Sleepy, you are right, I have jumped the gun.

As usual, it's just my illusion, day dreaming, living in a mirage in the hope of success.

Lost on the burning desert, fighting for life, I can see the ripple and hear the sound of waves on the beach.

Raj.

[daanopperman]

Raj
If I can give you advice , imagine your wheel idea was my wheel idea , and then you will be able to such for all the wrong ideas in that idea , and you can see why my wheel cannot turn by itself . Once you have scrutinized MY wheel , turn the idea back to your own .

[raj]

Can any concept fail to be good, simply because the proposer could not show proof?

Raj

[rlortie]

raj,

In this country you are Innocent until proven guilty, that requires more than insubstantial proof.

A concept can not fail or be excepted to be good until the proposer and the accuser show proof, by that I mean proof that it is or is not a good idea.

Do not throw it away, play with it, bounce it around and share with others who may spark an ides on how to improve it. Work it to death until it becomes substantial or dies on the vine. That is what a real researcher/inventor would do.

Ralph

[raj]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

What if the recipe is there, and no ingredient nor oven, and no one else want to bake it, saying they don't believe in that recipe.

That's the way some delights are lost.

This is general thoughts. Nothing do do with my own work. There must be countless of new inventive ideas in this world that unknowingly die premature death.

Raj

[preoccupied]

raj,

In this country you are Innocent until proven guilty, that requires more than insubstantial proof.

A concept can not fail or be excepted to be good until the proposer and the accuser show proof, by that I mean proof that it is or is not a good idea.

Do not throw it away, play with it, bounce it around and share with others who may spark an ides on how to improve it. Work it to death until it becomes substantial or dies on the vine. That is what a real researcher/inventor would do.

Ralph

It's okay Raj. I think rlortie is being too righteous. You should be able to study your wheel design with variables being isolated only. That's what you are doing. Measure the distance from the axle your weights will be and that's probably the most important part because it seems to be the decider in all of these weight displacement designs. This topic shows that springs will change the positions, but I don't think you've clarified very well the tension of the springs so it's guess work for how it would sit in different positions of the turn in my opinion.

[ME]

Can any concept fail to be good, simply because the proposer could not show proof?

A concept for proving something is simply unrelated to proving a concept works.
It only becomes related when they match, and that's the puzzle.

Failure at proving a concept could either proof the concept failed or proofs the concept was failed-to-be-proven while it doesn't proof the concept is good simply because the one who conceptualized the proof did fail to proof the concept... eeh, right?

With the same logic we read those success stories where one tries to sound like some fortune-teller when claiming proudly in hindsight: "I knew it all along".
Such "advice" only sounds cool and faithful up until realizing there are those many, many others who simply perished.
Things just often fail for different reasons (luckily we now have marketing (and stupid people) to help us save even the shittiest concept).
When finally truly successful there's this one trail through the piles of collateral damage connecting all those dots 'proving' that 'hindsight'.
You could hope random luck puts you on top of giant piles of trash. Which for sure is still success, but be prepared it's less charming.

So in order to not "invent by accident", with the equal possible chance of failing the proof, I agree with Ralph and Preoccupied:
- Work it to death until it becomes substantial or dies on the vine. That is what a real researcher/inventor would do.
- You should be able to study your wheel design with variables being isolated only.

For now the most interesting question to answer seems to be: what was it that made you "jump the gun"?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
What if the recipe is there, and no ingredient nor oven, and no one else want to bake it, saying they don't believe in that recipe.
That's the way some delights are lost.
This is general thoughts. Nothing do do with my own work. There must be countless of new inventive ideas in this world that unknowingly die premature death.

What "if"?
Random fluctuations of uncertainty principles and interference, that "if"!
Depending on scale we call that nucleosynthesis, evolution, religion, politics, marketing, culture, relationships, dialog, art, philosophy, ideas, thought....etc.
Containing so many beautiful things... often hidden... and so many more ways to screw it up. Usually early in the process.

Cherry picking the right thing at the right time in the right way is a real skill... but not every one likes (the same) cherry. Luckily or unfortunately.

[raj]

I am more involved with my Auto Wheel concept now than I was two days ago, working on it day and night full time.

I have built 2/3 crude prototypes and they are showing possibilities. Unfortunately I am not having proper material, like proper type of springs, bearings, and proper tools.

I cannot get all the levers, cords and elastic strings ( as springs) the same length, working alone, cutting all manually. There is always a few millimetres difference, and that is making synchronisation of the swinging weights difficult, in drum wheels less than two feet in diameter.

And the clear plastic wheel that I am using has a very slightly offset axle, which not making a perfect balance wheel.

I have tried building and testing with 8 weights at 45 degrees intervals, 4 weights at 90 degrees intervals and 3 weights at 120 degrees intervals. All of them showing the same pattern, weights moving exactly as on my drawing, falling at the 12 o'clock position, extending Elastic strings, one two revolution until one weight move almost to the 12 o'clock position, but fail to topple over the descending.

The problem as I see it, is synchronisation of motion of weights, and too much friction due to very crude build.

The wheel turns silently and there is no knocking sound.

So far I am happy with what I have seen.

Building a proper concept testing prototype is not within my ability.

I am having a paid computer simulation done by a professional in London, as a substitute as proof of concept for now, which is cheaper than hiring a prototype builder.

I am trying hard to see for myself, this concept right through.

Raj

[raj]

This is the drawing I am sending to David M. of London to do my Auto Wheel proof of concept simulation.

Raj

[raj]

Here is a picture of a build attempt using three levers/weights on pivots at 120 degrees intervals of rim of drum wheel.

I tried this because it is easier an attempt to build.

It is showing some positive signs. Of the three lever/weights, from rest, when one of two is exactly at the 6 o'clock position with its spring at the 12 o'clock position, the wheel continue to turn until the next lever/weight passes the 6 o'clock position and falls over on the descending to continue rotation.

Only one of the three lever/weights is not working as the other two. If all three lever/weights work as designed, the chances are my Auto Wheel concept would possibly work.

Also, I remember reading Bessler saying something like when he used only one or two crossbars, his wheel barely worked, and when he used more crossbars his wheel worked perfectly.

My prototype concept testing uses only three lever/weights falling only when they pass the 12 to 6 o'clock vertical line, to provide impetus, jerks and torque, every 120 degrees turn.

If we increase the number of levers to 8, as in my original Auto Wheel concept drawing, then a lever/weight would fall every 45 degrees turn, 8 times per revolution,, instead of three in my test, providing impetus, jerks and work more often, allowing each TOP WEIGHT to cross the 12 to 6 vertical line and fall on the descending side more easily.

This what I am expecting a proper concept testing would show, unless the wheel find an equilibrium point. But where would be that equilibrium point?

Raj

[raj]

When you look closely, at my drawings on this thread, none of them look like any of Bessler's 143 drawings.
But when you understand my explanations, my descriptions and drawings, you will find dozens of bessler's clues in them.

This is my wheel with many Bessler's clues.

Part and Parcel of Bessler's wheel general main forums discussions.

Raj

[agor95]

Can you give use the list of clues that are covered?

Much appreciated.

[raj]

Is this an attempt to prove me wrong?

There are 300 odd clues on records on Besslerwheel.com to choose from.

I can make many of them fit my wheel.

I mention just one to please you:
weights works in pairs, while one moves away from centre the other moves towards the centre.

By the way, NO ONE on this forum, including you, has shown Bessler's wheel on HERE, simply because no one has seen Bessler' wheel.

Everyone is showing their 0WN WHEEL

Raj

[preoccupied]

no raj

You only are making Bessler wheels and if you were introduced to this topic through another venue like over-unity website then you would be making over unity wheels with notoriety on whatever your main character of influence is. When you finish finding a gravity wheel it will forever be known as Bessler's wheel and not the Raj wheel because people will say that Raj discovered a Bessler wheel, not the original Bessler wheel. If you looked for a gravity perpetual motion machine over a contest for a life time supply of apples, it would be the apple contest wheel found by Raj. I mean you're too righteous for your glory. 90% of your interest in this gravity business is Bessler's ideas. Are you taking credit away from Johann Bessler? Nobody will allow that. Nobody will be allowed to use your gravity wheel or anybody else for mass electricity production anyways because if humanity is safe and wise they will not risk killing the entire human race to use gravity for energy. When gravity is used for energy by a perpetual motion machine society the Earth will cool internally and fly off course and we will all die on this planet.