Wher do we go from here?
Well, we all have a work to do when it comes to what we claim, what is reasonable, our gut feeling, extablished facts (by experience) etc., but also a work to do when it comes to visualize our ideas in a most understandable way. Any idea that comes up in this forum is assumed to violate physical laws. Having that in mind when reading someones post, will limit the free thinking, and also limit creative inputs (not my words - it has been mentioned several times on this forum - and I agree)
Putting oneself in the readers situation. "How will he/she understand my idea?". What can we do to make our ideas chrystal clear to anyone who wants to have an opinion about it? Think twice before we post anything; Ask ourself "How could my idea NOT work", look at alternative outcome of our idea, or at least be prepared to receive replies which conflicts with the idea or ones replies. These questions regards both beleivers and non-beleivers - regardless how obvious we think the outcome of an idea will be.


I think everyone should try to understand these issues first before we go anywhere. Also have some mathematical foundation so it would be possible to estimate an outcome of an idea in practice. My thoughts.


Vidar

Thanks Vidar,
                     I'll try someone else.
Can anyone help me? The man who normaly resizes my drawings,  (I don't know how to), has apparently died ----------------
and obviously, I need to get this design and its notes, on display.
Contact my private email address.
 
BILL.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I also have enhanced Bills design, but my computer refuse to upload anything to OU.com. Link to the picture is here

Maybe Bill can explain the different colors and how the 10 kg weights are moving around.

The original description from Bill:

  3.5 - 10.5 - 3.5
                                   ----------------


This device, generates more (in a sense,)'weight' on the right-hand side, than it does
on the left-hand side.      AND, using less 'weights'. Imposible?  NO!
Overbalancing, is caused in two ways;   1, more weight on one side of say, a wheel, or, 2,
LESS weight, but, at a greater distance from the wheels' hub!   #2, is the option I've gone for.
I've found, that there is a ratio that exists, between the 'inner', & 'outer' circles, that
go to make up, the making of the wheel proper!   It is 3 to 1.   3, 'inner' circle, and 1,
'outer-circle'. In other words, if the diameter of the 'inner' circle is 9", then the 'outer'
circle must be 3" more -------------- either side ------------- 15" all told.
If you look at the drawing, there are 7 weights, on the left-hand side, and only 5 on the
right-hand side.   STILL the 5 overbalance the seven!   Their collective distances, for the 5
weights on the right-hand side, are greater than the collective distances for the 7 on the
left-hand side.
All weights, each 'weigh' the same -------------- 10kgs each?
E.G.; If 2 weights (collectively) measure 10cms, (5cms each), on one side, and 1 weight measures
11cms, on the other side, -------- the single weight, measuring 11cms, will 'overbalance' the
other 2.  That's how I came up with THIS Idea.
Try it for yourself:   Take a wooden ruler, carefully balance it on a round pencil, place 2, of 3
identical coins, 5cms from the balancing point (pencil), one on top of the other, and the other
coin, 11cms from the same point, but in the oposite direction ---------------- the 11cm coin,
will overbalance the two x 5cm coins!   Less weight, but at a greater distance.




We now come to the point, that in some ways, has been the 'bone of contention'.
Weight #3, has, in a previous drawing/calculation been COUNTED TWICE!   Obviously, it can only
be counted once. Because the weight/arm 'hangs' from position #3, AND is shown sitting on
position #8 at the same time ------------ it, (the weight), has been shown as producing 10kgs
at position #3, AND at position #8! Totaly impossible, it's showing the same weight producing
10kgs in both places at the same time!






   

Vidar, my drawing was demonstrative only. I can't believe you took it seriously... I realise that the shape of tracks/patches the weights move along plays a very important role and... is probably a key for working OW. Yes, green arrow nearby weight 'C' makes a problem, but there is a way to decrease this force. But... green arrow 'B' should be around 4 times longer than green arrow 'D' (the gain from leverage) - on your drawing is only twice longer...
Thank you for your time and explanation however I am not convinced you are right. On my drawing u saw a typical example of wrongly designed tracks, but as I mentioned it was only for illustrative purposes...
Also I believe that correctly designed tracks can help to utilise centrifugal forces to push weights onto falling side of wheel. That may be a secret of SJack Abelling solution.

Il est pathfinder. J'aime son travail. Tres bon, n'est pas ?
http://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3733

To Vidar, #259
                        Vidar, just what is it , that confuses you,  everyone else seems to understand it?   I fail to understand, why you
think everyone else, doesn't understand it either!
 
 

 
To Johnny874   re; reply # 258
                                                  You say 'anxious',. but do you realy mean excited?  You also say, you'll keep quiet about it
for now.   Are you worried about ridicule?   If you are, DON'T BE!
There's an old saying of mine, that I use from time to time, it's this; re; P.M:   You can be wrong countless times, but you only
have to be right once!
 
BILL.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

In the original drawing, submitted to Vidar, the extension-arms, are shown as dotted lines, and is much easier to understand,
perhaps when he gets his computer fixed ----------- he'll show you(?)

I replaced the dotted lines with grey lines, and the solid lines as black - just to save some time (Lazy me :-)). Regarding the understanding of the design I linked to, I'm not sure how to. I feel there are some issues with the design that I cannot point my finger on. Weights, repeating cycle - well, to me it boils down to moving weights up and down the same distance over and over again (Like watching this design from the side so I don't see the rotation). I mean, something should account for the over balanced part. I must imagine to remove all the weights except for one, and imagine how this single weight can gain kinetic energy just by repeating the cycle - it is hard for me to imagine such. Even with more weights, the total mass increase, the weights must account for themself, so to speak. My brain is simply blocking (Some kind of human anti virus software installed) the imagination on how this design can work.


Vidar

Il est pathfinder. J'aime son travail. Tres bon, n'est pas ?
http://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3733

John, thank you for link. I appreciate it. Unfortunately I don't speak French , but... yes this man [pathfinder] is a very talented person I must say and his projects are really great. Amazing... he's built up all these devices one can see on photos. Analysing will be a great lesson of geometry and engineering.
I personally need to continue works on magnet motor. As for now believe in magnets as potential source of energy more than in gravity, especially after I've done some promissing experiments with bismuth as shielding.

Good luck all path finders...