Author Topic: Overbalancing wheel (Read 165811 times)

johnny874 · « **Reply #225 on:** February 29, 2012, 11:39:25 PM »

Quote from: Low-Q on February 29, 2012, 10:43:34 PM

The apartment is now sold. We are moving in to the new place april 13.th - it's on a friday and I hope all goes well...

I would strongly recommend you to get a family before that Bessler wheel works.... . Ã…lesund is a nice place, but your Norwegian needs some tuning :-))

Hi Vidar,
Not sure, but maybe one day I will have a home like you do and can work there as well as...
Not sure about family. People keep telling me I am special or I have the Lord in my life.
In reality, I think people hold my hearing loss against me and make excuses. This is possibly
why Bessler's wheel is important to me. It might give me the opportunity to have a family one day.
Any idea on when you might start building ? I have seen Merg post his work and would be interested as I am sure others are in seeing your own work.

Jim

Vidar

SPANG · « **Reply #226 on:** March 01, 2012, 01:04:25 AM »

Hi Rafael,
The opinion given by Vidar, reflects the opinion that perpetual motion is impossible! I don't share that opinion!
I still stick by my interpretation of the design submitted. (Which, incidentaly, does NOT mention perpetual motion.) I'm
not saying Vidar is wrong, but his opinion, is only HIS opinion! His opinion may be shared by others ------------- but not
all!
An opinion, is only an opinion -------------- NOT a fact!

Low-Q · « **Reply #227 on:** March 01, 2012, 07:30:26 AM »

Quote from: SPANG on March 01, 2012, 01:04:25 AM

Hi Rafael,
The opinion given by Vidar, reflects the opinion that perpetual motion is impossible! I don't share that opinion!
I still stick by my interpretation of the design submitted. (Which, incidentaly, does NOT mention perpetual motion.) I'm
not saying Vidar is wrong, but his opinion, is only HIS opinion! His opinion may be shared by others ------------- but not
all!
An opinion, is only an opinion -------------- NOT a fact!

It does not reflect that perpetual motion is impossible - that was YOUR words. I explain that gravity wheels cannot work. Not an opinion, but a FACT. That fact is not extablished by me.

Vidar

Low-Q · « **Reply #228 on:** March 01, 2012, 08:02:56 AM »

If a family cannot accept who YOU are, and you have to have some material values first, is not a base of a honest, good and faithful marriage...nor a happy family.

Vidar

SPANG · « **Reply #229 on:** March 01, 2012, 09:05:20 AM »

Please note; Vidars theory, is now a fact. He must have a time machine ----------------- travelled to the end of time
--------------------- found out that perpetual motion is impossible ----------------------- and tells us now, just to save
ourselves the 'trouble' of putting in the years of hard work, that some of us have done. Don't forget, IT'S A FACT!
Just out of curiosity Vidar, what on Earth has anyones family to do with this discussion?
Please leave my family 'out of it', o.k?

Low-Q · « **Reply #230 on:** March 01, 2012, 11:18:58 AM »

Quote from: SPANG on March 01, 2012, 09:05:20 AM

Please note; Vidars theory, is now a fact. He must have a time machine ----------------- travelled to the end of time
--------------------- found out that perpetual motion is impossible ----------------------- and tells us now, just to save
ourselves the 'trouble' of putting in the years of hard work, that some of us have done. Don't forget, IT'S A FACT!
Just out of curiosity Vidar, what on Earth has anyones family to do with this discussion?
Please leave my family 'out of it', o.k?

Again you are putting words in my mouth. Read what is written, and consider the history of all the "engineers" who has designed and built gravity powered machines that doesn't work. If gravity isn't what we think it is doing to objects, then we would wonder why Neil Armstrong missed the moon - well, he didn't thanks to accurate calculations which includes gravity.

As I have explained to you before: Gravity is a vertical force. A vertical force will pull an object vertically, even if it follows a circular path. The difference is the tangential force (torque) that changes from nothing at 12 and 6 o'clock, to maximum at 9 and 3 o'clock. The values in between is a cosine function of the angle. At 45 degrees the tangential force (torque) is 70.7% of maximum. At 60 degrees it is only 50%. At 30 degrees it is 87%. At 0 degrees (at 3 or 9 o'clock) it is 100%. What is happening when an object is following an elliptic or circular path does therfor not change the potential energy of an object at a given hight, at any locations on that path. It is the hight that counts. Therfor these seemingly overbalanced wheels do actually not overbalance. The force along the path is in other words depending on the tangential angle of a moving object along that path - regardless of the shape of the path, and where the hub or pivot point is located.

You are old enough to understand these basics, so I do not understand why it is questionable.

Not your family I was refering to. I did quote the post above from another member, but it seems now that the quote did not show up in that last post of mine - I can see that you think I was refering to you - but that is not the case. It was however off topic, so I will take the blame for being off topic.

Vidar

SPANG · « **Reply #231 on:** March 01, 2012, 12:04:25 PM »

And an overbalancing wheel is therefore impossible, right?
Perhaps you would like to explain to us all, HOW an overbalancing wheel works!
I'm 68, NOT 18 and naive! And don't forget to leave my family alone!
I'm begining to see you as a troublemaker, and stupid.
Pull yourself together!

Rafael Ti · « **Reply #232 on:** March 01, 2012, 12:38:46 PM »

Quote from: SPANG on March 01, 2012, 01:04:25 AM

Hi Rafael,
The opinion given by Vidar, reflects the opinion that perpetual motion is impossible! I don't share that opinion!
I still stick by my interpretation of the design submitted. (Which, incidentaly, does NOT mention perpetual motion.) I'm
not saying Vidar is wrong, but his opinion, is only HIS opinion! His opinion may be shared by others ------------- but not
all!
An opinion, is only an opinion -------------- NOT a fact!

Thank you Bill, thank you Vidar...
As for now I don't believe Vidar about gravity machines

, but who knows... maybe I will have to? However I am open for the truth. I found many strange arguments against harnessing the energy from gravity.
For example: the field of gravity is homogeneous... But if we compare gravity to the wind we can assume that in many cases the forces of wind are homogeneous too, and we still can get energy from it - we just put there a windmill.
Some ppl on this forum say avoiding the friction in gravity wheel is not enough... don't know maybe they're right, but I believe it is enough to make them working.
All the best

Low-Q · « **Reply #233 on:** March 01, 2012, 01:11:18 PM »

Quote from: SPANG on March 01, 2012, 12:04:25 PM

And an overbalancing wheel is therefore impossible, right?
Perhaps you would like to explain to us all, HOW an overbalancing wheel works!
I'm 68, NOT 18 and naive! And don't forget to leave my family alone!
I'm begining to see you as a troublemaker, and stupid.
Pull yourself together!

I have not interferred with your family.

I cannot explain how a gravity wheel works, because it don't work. I have explained why it doesn't work.
Troublemaker? How?

Vidar

SPANG · « **Reply #234 on:** March 01, 2012, 01:12:08 PM »

Hi Raphael,
Thanks for your 'input' ---------------- most welcome!
Time will tell, as the saying goes! What you probably DON'T know, is the fact that Vidar, & I, have been privately
comunicating for quite some time now ----- about a year, or so. Since that time, I've made up my mind, that I will
not have anything more to do with him ------------------- I've tried, believe me I've tried! If only...,
Keep up your work, and all the best to you!

BILL.

Low-Q · « **Reply #235 on:** March 01, 2012, 01:33:51 PM »

Quote from: Rafael Ti on March 01, 2012, 12:38:46 PM

Thank you Bill, thank you Vidar...
As for now I don't believe Vidar about gravity machines , but who knows... maybe I will have to? However I am open for the truth. I found many strange arguments against harnessing the energy from gravity.
For example: the field of gravity is homogeneous... But if we compare gravity to the wind we can assume that in many cases the forces of wind are homogeneous too, and we still can get energy from it - we just put there a windmill.
Some ppl on this forum say avoiding the friction in gravity wheel is not enough... don't know maybe they're right, but I believe it is enough to make them working.
All the best

Wind and gravity is not the same. Wind is kinetic energy (Which includes a force that has put mass into motion), gravity is only a force. The mass you put into that force will provide a potential energy that is either gained or lost if the mass change altitude. Since every weight in a gravity wheel is going up and down with the same vertical distance, the net output will therfor be zero. See?

The windmill in the drawing is rotating due to the profile of the fins. The mass flow of the wind will provide subpressure on the upper fins right side (the convex side), and pressure on the left side the concave side (due to its curved shape - similar principle as an airplane wing). This will cause the windmill to rotate clockwise. The bottom fin is curved opposite with respect to the wind direction, but also on the opposite side of the hub - providing clockwise rotation too.

Vidar

Low-Q · « **Reply #236 on:** March 01, 2012, 02:14:24 PM »

Quote from: SPANG on March 01, 2012, 01:12:08 PM

Hi Raphael,
Thanks for your 'input' ---------------- most welcome!
Time will tell, as the saying goes! What you probably DON'T know, is the fact that Vidar, & I, have been privately
comunicating for quite some time now ----- about a year, or so. Since that time, I've made up my mind, that I will
not have anything more to do with him ------------------- I've tried, believe me I've tried! If only...,
Keep up your work, and all the best to you!

BILL.

I have tried as hard as I can to help you with your desings. I have tried as hard as I can to understand your drawings, replied with comments and questions. I have had many hours trying to feedback with comments I have had with the designs. The problem is just that you "know" it works, and will not accept my replies. Lately I have stopped commenting designs which is based on weights that is limited within a given change of altitude - so called self powered over balanced gravity wheels. All the designs you have spent hours in thinking out (And I respect you for being stabborn, and never giving up), and handed to me for evaluation, is designs which prevents itself from being selfrunners. If you cannot accept this kind of feedback, that should be your own design problem - problems that shouldn't be me in person.

Vidar

Rafael Ti · « **Reply #237 on:** March 01, 2012, 02:44:28 PM »

Quote from: Low-Q on March 01, 2012, 01:33:51 PM

Wind and gravity is not the same. Wind is kinetic energy (Which includes a force that has put mass into motion), gravity is only a force. The mass you put into that force will provide a potential energy that is either gained or lost if the mass change altitude. Since every weight in a gravity wheel is going up and down with the same vertical distance, the net output will therfor be zero. See?

Ha ha! Vidar

... 'gravity is only a force'... wind also can be assumed as only force unless there is no molecules to move. It doesn't matter for final effect what causes the movement, or in other words what energizes the mass.
Another common mistake I believe the sceptics make is a simple conclusion (as Vidar said) that: "since every weight in a gravity wheel is going up and down on the same vertical distance, the net output therefore will be zero". No, I don't agree... because as this is a multi-leverage system the weights on falling side have more energy (coming from gravity) than weights on rising side. It's obvious for me...

Low-Q · « **Reply #238 on:** March 01, 2012, 07:16:23 PM »

Quote from: Rafael Ti on March 01, 2012, 02:44:28 PM

Ha ha! Vidar ... 'gravity is only a force'... wind also can be assumed as only force unless there is no molecules to move. It doesn't matter for final effect what causes the movement, or in other words what energizes the mass.
Another common mistake I believe the sceptics make is a simple conclusion (as Vidar said) that: "since every weight in a gravity wheel is going up and down on the same vertical distance, the net output therefore will be zero". No, I don't agree... because as this is a multi-leverage system the weights on falling side have more energy (coming from gravity) than weights on rising side. It's obvious for me...

There would be no wind if the molecules weren't there.
Gravity is not a mass that moves.
The multi leverage system does not change anything. Look at each weight separately, and how they separately moves in a complete cycle. What do you see? Is it now obvious that this weight has more energy on the way down on one side, than the energy it takes on the way up on the other side? Each weight must account for themself.

This is simple physics. If you don't understand it, that is your problem, but also your chance to learn and confirm if you experiment with this kind of physics. I've been there, learned, and moved on.

Vidar

Rafael Ti · « **Reply #239 on:** March 01, 2012, 09:16:33 PM »

Vidar, the mass can be energized either by wind or by gravity or by pushing it with a finger. It doesn't matter how... The levering around axis allowes the wheel to move. Actually the windmills also use some kind of leverage... Overbalancing wheels use multi leverage with continuesly changing ratio... and this is why I can't say; "Each weight must account for itself". Each weight is a part of whole system and tied to others, mostly opposite weights.
Vidar, maybe u right, but time will show, as Bill said. I guess some projects failed due to poor particular design or perform. I think we can't expect a great gain of power from gravity wheel comparing to its dimension. And this is why the idea often can not overcome the friction and some design mistakes...

All the best in your attempts people...

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Overbalancing wheel (Read 165811 times)

johnny874

Re: Overbalancing wheel

SPANG

Re: Overbalancing wheel

Low-Q

Re: Overbalancing wheel

Low-Q

Re: Overbalancing wheel

SPANG

Re: Overbalancing wheel

Low-Q

Re: Overbalancing wheel

SPANG

Re: Overbalancing wheel

Rafael Ti

Re: Overbalancing wheel

Low-Q

Re: Overbalancing wheel

SPANG

Re: Overbalancing wheel

Low-Q

Re: Overbalancing wheel

Low-Q

Re: Overbalancing wheel

Rafael Ti

Re: Overbalancing wheel

Low-Q

Re: Overbalancing wheel

Rafael Ti

Re: Overbalancing wheel