Author Topic: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved. (Read 367261 times)

gurangax · « **Reply #600 on:** May 24, 2014, 02:33:40 AM »

Quote from: MT on May 23, 2014, 11:05:03 PM

Hi gurangax,
Thanks for posting the idea. It really seemed you have it with all the theater around but as others also pointed I would also not be so sure. The idea may produce sounds similar what witnesses heard but I think the wheel will not pass 9o'clock in production phase.
In your first video for example your crossbar is 6kg which is lifted say 1m , this makes 60J GPE.
Your weight on lever is 1.3kg not considering weight of lever itself. If we assume crossbar is being lifted 1m then longer lever arm is looking at picture about 3m. Then weight start at 12o'clock have 39J GPE.
You let it fall 3 m to the 3o'clock then during lifting the crossbar another 3m below the rotation point. This movement only costed 78J.
No I assume you want to use the crossbar builded leverage to get also the lever with weight back to 12o'clock.
No way... Sorry.

Marcel

That is true only for a balanced system, (lever in full contact all time, where energy gain is not happening), you should understand the weight excess phenomenon, it is something which is imposible to get with a conected lever to the crossbar. knowing this itself is very telling of the fact that the droping weight energies was translated into a force which become the source of power to turn the wheel. if not you tell me where the laws of conservation goes for the fall of weight.

regards

gurangax · « **Reply #601 on:** May 24, 2014, 03:02:27 AM »

Quote from: gurangax on May 24, 2014, 02:33:40 AM

That is true only for a balanced system, (lever in full contact all time, where energy gain is not happening), you should understand the weight excess phenomenon, it is something which is imposible to get with a conected lever to the crossbar. knowing this itself is very telling of the fact that the droping weight energies was translated into a force which become the source of power to turn the wheel. if not you tell me where the laws of conservation goes for the fall of weight.

regards

A lever in full contact with the crossbar all the time is balanced in what ever position of the lever. the diffrence is so obvious. you just need to do the experiment if you wanted answers.

regards

ARMCORTEX · « **Reply #602 on:** May 24, 2014, 09:02:55 AM »

Not @ all the holy grail design.

Alot of Bobby Amasingham's devices are better than this and much smaller, and probably more powerful.

Especially the new ones with springs and eccentric weights.

I dont expect much of your design, you should pay attention to what others are doing instead of stupid texts.

Its very difficult to reach you and explain these simple facts.

This was posted on a small reclusive forum I go to.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/51593515/bobby%20new.phz

MT · « **Reply #603 on:** May 24, 2014, 10:14:57 AM »

Quote from: gurangax on May 24, 2014, 02:33:40 AM

That is true only for a balanced system, (lever in full contact all time, where energy gain is not happening), you should understand the weight excess phenomenon, it is something which is imposible to get with a conected lever to the crossbar. knowing this itself is very telling of the fact that the droping weight energies was translated into a force which become the source of power to turn the wheel. if not you tell me where the laws of conservation goes for the fall of weight.

Good morning,
I think I understand the excess weight as you describe it. A moving object appears heavier to impacted object. In the example it has actually a variable weight. Maximal at impact at 3o'clock, back to 1.3kg at 6oclock. For me this is a novel view on a moving object but not so sure it matters. One need to get object up to desired speed, it costs something. And this something should also be part of energy calculation of the cycle. Anyway I'll still give a thought, will see what else it offers. Thanks.

Marcel

ARMCORTEX · « **Reply #604 on:** May 24, 2014, 11:06:37 AM »

If Bessler were alive today, and if he would make a high torque medium speed machine (he would be much further), then surely he would have an offset drive arrangement. With the motor acting as its own swinging pendulum, accelerator, and driver on a central sun gear or external track. Probably incredibly clever arrangement and superior to anything you could ever come up with.

With a lightweight frame and low amount of parts, and incredible OU ratio.

Not an wooden machine of the old days.

MT · « **Reply #605 on:** May 24, 2014, 11:15:23 AM »

Just curious. How much say 1kg object going 10km/h "weights" upon impact of another object when it is forced to a full stop? How to calculate this?

Marcel

ARMCORTEX · « **Reply #606 on:** May 24, 2014, 11:18:45 AM »

Would you like me to throw at you a spinning flywheel at 5000 rpm or a non rotating flywheel ?

Wich one could you catch without bodily harm ?

Airstriker · « **Reply #607 on:** May 24, 2014, 11:37:25 AM »

Simple lego model of excess weight principle:
http://youtu.be/G85tl-e9VFM

ARMCORTEX · « **Reply #608 on:** May 24, 2014, 12:02:57 PM »

That is not in the spirit of gravity device principles and very bad practice to cantilever like this, bearings should only receive radial forces.

You are basicly providing sideway traction on a cantilever to a bearing ? Are you insane ?

Even well engineered this is crap as a free energy device, where is the kinetic energy of that weight and conservation of momentum?

You are slowing down your rotating weight as it is about to fall, loading it

I dont see any relation with the motion of planets , galaxies and universe. Uninspired.

gurangax · « **Reply #609 on:** May 24, 2014, 12:14:35 PM »

guys do not forget that I have shown not even half of the energy gained on the falling lever.

regards

gurangax · « **Reply #610 on:** May 24, 2014, 12:18:12 PM »

Quote from: gurangax on May 24, 2014, 12:14:35 PM

guys do not forget that I have shown not even half of the energy gained on the falling lever.

regards

a maximum energy gain can throw a 4 times weight heavier into air literaly speaking

ARMCORTEX · « **Reply #611 on:** May 24, 2014, 12:18:56 PM »

Quote from: gurangax on May 24, 2014, 12:14:35 PM

guys do not forget that I have shown not even half of the energy gained on the falling lever.

regards

You must be dumb, loading your rotating weight as its about to fall with a shitty ass lever arm cantilevered on a bearing.

Thats basicly the opposite of what you should be doing. At that point you extend the lever and push it tangantially.. And you try to respect bearings if you can.

infringer · « **Reply #612 on:** May 25, 2014, 07:05:27 AM »

I almost wondered if we stopped thinking 2D and started thinking more 3D if we couldn't achieve OU with a sphere instead of a wheel I have never gave it much thought per say as to what other things would be possible with a sphere but I assume this would open us up to a few more possible things than grappling with a wheel not that a wheel overbalanced is not possible it may very well be but it is a simple question but somewhat complex for one to picture all of the possibilities alone. The other thing I wonder is scale we all know from the quantum world that scale does indeed have an effect on possibility so who knows we may need a thousand super small wheels to generate the effect and provide over unity power as well go big or go home may not apply.

MarkE · « **Reply #613 on:** May 25, 2014, 08:00:19 AM »

Quote from: infringer on May 25, 2014, 07:05:27 AM

I almost wondered if we stopped thinking 2D and started thinking more 3D if we couldn't achieve OU with a sphere instead of a wheel I have never gave it much thought per say as to what other things would be possible with a sphere but I assume this would open us up to a few more possible things than grappling with a wheel not that a wheel overbalanced is not possible it may very well be but it is a simple question but somewhat complex for one to picture all of the possibilities alone. The other thing I wonder is scale we all know from the quantum world that scale does indeed have an effect on possibility so who knows we may need a thousand super small wheels to generate the effect and provide over unity power as well go big or go home may not apply.

Vector calculus is the tool that you need to evaluate your 3D versus 2D question. Before you go to all of the effort, you might try to get an intuitive sense by pondering what forces are going to act along the added axis and how they will affect the movement and ultimate energy in and out.

mscoffman · « **Reply #614 on:** May 25, 2014, 09:28:38 PM »

2d vs 3d question;

I think the Grurangax should consider gaining access to a student version
of a professional package of a 3d drawing and 3d mechanical simulation
computer software. He may have to become a "virtual" student to do it and to get
access to a low cost student version of the software. This is especially true
if he has end-to-end confidence in his design. Hopefully this software would
come with an "evolutionary" design simulator that would allow computer
driven experimental parameter adjustment of subsystems. This type of method
would save time, especially in the worst case should his methods fail to converge
to a solution.

I would encourage him to do this if he feels he has a golden thread of a method
that will work, before he lets naysayers change his focus to methods he has not
tried. He has apparently done much experimental evaluation of his methods
already. But there are indications that he is going to need to rely on 3d gyroscopic
forces to get adequate energy to make this system go. This will feed small
forces back and forth across 3d axis frame boundaries. Getting adequate
stiffness across a 3d to 2d simulation converter, while possible, does not
seem like it promises a good time. Once he has a three dimensional solution
he may be able to cause it to be back-fit to a 2d solution with margins, for
demonstration display purposes.

He should also be sensitive whether all the mechanical methods he is using
such as cable drag? and fully free component trajectories are simulated
accurately.

This method also holds promise if he is finds he is having probabilistic failures
in a real experimental device.

Accurate Statistics like Grurangax's: " The Wheel is overbalanced 95% of the time
during rotation", or broil's "energy at center of gravity of subcomponents" can help
add to the conviction that this can work.

:S:MarkSCoffman

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved. (Read 367261 times)

gurangax

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

gurangax

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

ARMCORTEX

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

MT

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

ARMCORTEX

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

MT

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

ARMCORTEX

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

Airstriker

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

ARMCORTEX

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

gurangax

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

gurangax

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

ARMCORTEX

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

infringer

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

MarkE

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

mscoffman

Re: The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.