@All,
  A cleaner drawing. The one I will build will use a deck with cleats. Somewhat of a homeage
to my having been around ships.
 If the release line is attached to the top part of the catch mechnism, then when the line is pulled
taut, it should release the swinging weight. The weight can have the rod to the fulcrum going
through it. This will allow it to slide slightly up it as it pushes the catch mechanism away before
the catch mechanism moves under the swinging weight to catch it on it's return movement. it is this line which will
time the movement or rocking/tilting of the cross beam. The catch mechanism can catch pins that are located on the
sides of the weights. This means that there woulld be 2 catch mechanisms working together, one for each side of the
weight.
 The cross beam's motion can be controlled by stops placed on the cross beam which interact with the
main support that the cross beam pivots on.
 The pulley for the opposing weight can be attached to the main support at about an angle of 45 degrees.
This will allow the force the line places on the pin or pulley to be in the direction of the support.
 The basic size from center pivot of the cross bem to the center of the pin for the swing weight is
12" (inches). The cross beam is centered length wise to maintain it's balance between left and right.
 
                                                                                                            Jim
 
 
 And to modify the agreement I posted, I do not work with private builders
associated with the Arrache build group.
This includes AB Hammer.
 
                     
                     
                     
                     
               James . Lindgaard
 
 

To set a story straight. Most of us will not work with James Lindgaard either. But I do wish Jim the best of luck.
Alan / AB Hammer
PS- Yes Jim, I am still around. I just don't post much due to I don't have the time with all the reconstruction going on.

 that's nice alan.
and maybe the next time you of someone working through cancer, you will leave them alone ?
 and you are right, my dad isn't to smart. after all, he did move to America.
 I can work off line and if my work doesn't look like it's the only thing I've ever done, that's okay because I will have done other things.
 You know what they say, Jack of all trades anc master of none.
 I can live with that.

edited to add; without a patent on a perpetual pendulum, only businesses would profit and who knows what else would ensue such as legal battles. but dic find out a willingness to donate patent rights brought about the same old problems.
 of course, like alan and his friends say is that bessler's wheel can be patented because no one knows what his wheel was like. integrity ?

bye

I should clarify my position on patenting.  I would like to (if for no other reason than to protect my right to sell and profit from the invention), but after reading so much about this, I'm not sure I want the headache of it all.
 
Of course patenting implies one has found the solution, so I guess we all hope to be put in such a position.
 

James,
 
I am confused.  Please correct me where I am wrong.
 
2.5lb as the CW and 5lb as the BOB.  Cord goes from CW to overhead pulley then straight to BOB.
 
This is basically the setup I used in my last video post, but I used identical 2.5lb weights for the CW and BOB.  In that setup, the BOB lifted the CW and with a fair amount of force.  This is opposite the reset movement we are seeking.
 
I am attaching that video to this post.
 
Rick

  zoelra,
 tomorrow, I will post a diagram that will be fairly simple. And if that doesn't show anything, then I'd have to think it unlikely of being able to work perpetually.

edited to simplify post.

To set a story straight. Most of us will not work with James Lindgaard either. But I do wish Jim the best of luck.
Alan / AB Hammer
PS- Yes Jim, I am still around. I just don't post much due to I don't have the time with all the reconstruction going on.

 oh, alan, remember this post of yours ? Saying my medical problems make me a fraud ?
 But you say that is not slander, it is and something I shiold sue you for.
 http://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4656
 

Hi James,
 
Sorry for not posting earlier.
 
Last night I was able to make some additional videos which I will now try to explain.  In order to use the same weight for the counter weight and pendulum bob, I had to move the counter weight out 6 inches so that there was sufficient torque to pull the lever back down after the pendulum swing.  I also added an additional mount so I could swing the pendulum and mark how high the main lever rose (on the counter weight side) when the pendulum was at the bottom of its swing.  I drew a line on the main lever to indicate the initial drop position of the pendulum lever relative to the main lever.  I also added a line on the opposite side of the pendulum pivot point which represents where the pendulum lever should stop after its swing (same height as drop height).  After measuring how high the pendulum lever actually rose, the difference would be the height the reset mechanism would need to lift the bob.
 
Interesting enough, the main lever did not drop (or not by much) by the time the pendulum bob came to a stop at the top of its swing on the inside position.   This is what is shown in the first video (f1).  In the second video (f2), I lowered the camera to a position that was level with the top of the pendulum bob when it came to a stop at the top of its swing on the inside position.  I put a piece of blue tape on wall behind the pendulum, and after a few test swings, I marked the top position with a black line.  I then connected a cord to the main lever and the pendulum bob so that when the main lever was at the top position, the pendulum bob would be at the actual position it came to after its swing.  This is what is shown in the third video (f3).  I also attached a picture which was a slide out of f3 that shows how high the pendulum rose when the main lever was at its highest position.  On this picture I marked in red the drop and ideal raise position of the pendulum lever.
 
Well from the videos you can see that the pendulum does not return to the same height (or relative position against the main lever) from which it was dropped.  You can also see that the reset mechanism does not fully reset the weight.  By moving the cord further out along the main lever, the distance it travels vertically may allow the bob to be raised further.  More testing is required.  I think the results though are position and worth thinking about.  Also keep in mind that I did not use bearings so the main lever and pendulum bob did not raise as high as they could have due to increased friction.
 
Rick

I think I need to clarify what I said in my previous post.  The attached picture (f2-slide) is taken from the second video (f2) when the pendulum bob has come to a stop at the top of its swing to the inside.  At this time, the main lever is also at its highest position.  Note the position of the pendulum lever relative to the main lever.  In the third video (f3) a cord has been added to link the pendulum bob to the main lever such that when I lift the lever to it's highest point, the pendulum bob is also at its highest point (as determined during the swing test in the second video (f2).  When I let the lever drop, the bob is raised, but not to the initial drop position.  In the video I manually show how high it still has to be lifted.  Open the third video and place it just above the pic so you can still see the pic.  You will see when I lift the lever to the top position, it resembles the arrangement of the levers in the picture.
 
By positioning the cord attachment point out further along the main lever, this will increase the amount of cord pulled and will lift the bob higher.  Of course the counter weight may have to be moved out further as well or made heavier to counter the increased torgue due to moving the attachment point out further.