How about a gravity wheel design based on 360 degrees or minimum energy = 0*6?, the frame of a squared hypotenuse!!!


http://www.metacafe.com/watch/796423/gravity_wheel_theory/

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zsTodzq4hXE


Ant

It doesn't work.

If below describes the medieval flap or you are a witness to a similar prototype not working, fair enough. But before you condemn the idea so sharply perhaps there is something you should know about the prototype. 
 
In the Video the three arms go to from 1 to about 80 incrementing squares so the true displacement of 111 incremented squares is not shown, there are at least 31 longer incrementing squares and three arms missing for MINIMUM rotation.

When I started I had no idea how long the arm needed to be or if it could be done at all. Through trial I found the more the arms were expanded the more weight was displaced causing it to turn more.

When I placed weights on the end of the arms the arms 'dugg in', rotation was retarded.

The 0 weight with 6 square waves, each 8 thick, is based on the downward sum of a non-linear 6?.

I could go on to how the specified length allows 0 to ride the same frame as the speed of light but won't here. I have been studying the Law of the Squares by JRR Searl since the early 90's, I find them interesting to say the least.

Each of my arms in the wheel weighed a stone+, anyone interested in making a prototype will need to find a suitable material, cut them to size, be willing to drill some 15,984 precision drilled holes etc. On the up-side as a prototype - the holes in the arms do not need 1,998 bearings, just pins. Friction created by the arms opening and closing works against them opening and closing. It is overcome by the proportional weight of the arm and the force of gravity.

The force of gravity and the angled position of each arm on the wheel opens and closes the arm at predetermined points when rotated. With six arms they open - weight is dropped and accumilated to the diameter, closed - rotation gravity and weight gently drops the arm into the closed position. The arms are sited in equal and opposite places - relative to the axle.

Centrifugal force does not keep the arms fixed in the open position, the wheel would need to rotate at speed for that to happen.

If '1' was defined as 0.01 metres and applied to the arm, each arm - when fully open, the arm would measure around 124.32 metres. This is the equivalent of 6,216 square frames measuring 0.01 metres each. Inside the wheel the arm does not fully open it just oscillates a little back and forth.

The weight on the axle and subsequent friction can be reduced by an axle bearing (no axle bearing on protoype).

Nuff said for now...

@shruggedatlas
the Besslerwheel did work !

But most people over here forget, that you have to
store the down-movement in springs, so the potential energy
is not lost for the next cycle.

The perspective is to unbalance a wheel with a shifting weight going down,
but being on a spring,
then "cash in" the unbalanced gravity acceleration of the wheel,
which then has extracted enough gravity energy to
pull up the weight again via the spring for the next cycle to
again unbalance the wheel and "cash in" the next gravity energy.

The Besslerwheel must have have used this principle and was
successful.

The perspective is to unbalance a wheel with a shifting weight going down,
but being on a spring,
then "cash in" the unbalanced gravity acceleration of the wheel,
which then has extracted enough gravity energy to
pull up the weight again via the spring for the next cycle to
again unbalance the wheel and "cash in" the next gravity energy.

Great way of putting it.

I'll attach some pictures

Indication how the circuit of 0 is manipulated by the square wave.
Where the arms fall.
And imagine how easy the arm closes because of the angle of centre pins here exampled is a small arm. Rotate at the axle point clockwise and the arm softly closes by gravity.

@shruggedatlas
the Besslerwheel did work !

...

The Besslerwheel...was
successful.

Stefan:  You state these things as if you were there in person and saw it...as if you had special certain knowledge of the Bessler Wheel!  I'm curious as to what evidence or logic you base your assertions upon. 

Not trying to start an argument...I have no opinion as to whether Bessler's wheel worked or not, other than it's lack of replications and my general skepticism.  I'm curious though why your opinion is so strong on this one?

Humbugger

Quote from: hartiberlin on September 04, 2007, 08:08:24 AM

@shruggedatlas
the Besslerwheel did work !

But most people over here forget, that you have to
store the down-movement in springs, so the potential energy
is not lost for the next cycle.

The perspective is to unbalance a wheel with a shifting weight going down,
but being on a spring,
then "cash in" the unbalanced gravity acceleration of the wheel,
which then has extracted enough gravity energy to
pull up the weight again via the spring for the next cycle to
again unbalance the wheel and "cash in" the next gravity energy.

The Besslerwheel must have have used this principle and was
successful.

I do not understand how springs can help.  A spring is not an overunity device.  Whatever energy is used to compress the spring, the spring will give out less afterwards, after you account for friction, sound, heat, etc.

Although your query appears to be addressed to hartiberlin or is it Stefen! My wheel design employs a 2D spring in the form of a square wave.

When the middle pins are removed the square wave can be coiled, no good for the machine but I think it is an interesting piece of data.

Here is a 100 square wave coiled, tightly packed it appears as a circle with pieces of 8 - segments to the spiral, with & in the middle.

I will admit I am not sure how the spring goes inside your device.  Is the whole thing coiled inside the wheel, as displayed?  If so, I do not see how it aids rotation.  I did read your description as carefully as I could, and I do not quite get the role of the spring.

I'll try to explain it differently. A slinky - a long coiled spring that 'walks' downstairs. If you were to place it on a table hold it at each end in a straight line pulling it open a bit. Then if you oscillate the long spring in and out once there so a close bunch of springs together that travel along the slightly expanded spring.

In a long spring that bunch of springs together represents weight displacement.

Looking at the small arm in the post above, like a small spring it does not have this long coiled spring bunching effect.
The reason I illustrated it was to show that when the wheel is rotated clockwise, Gravity and the fixed angle of the arm on the wheel - closes the arm - because the centre pins and the square waves steady incline.

Here is a longer arm, the one fitted in the wheel on the video is 1 square longer.

Even given my incomplete picture, let me assure you, no one has ever gotten more energy out of a spring than was put in to compress/extend it to begin with, so you cannot come out ahead here.  I feel for you and commend you - I can tell you have put a ton of work into this wheel.  But you are beating your head against the same wall that Leonardo Da Vinci and countless others did.  There is no gravity wheel.  Ironically, the perfect spinning wheel will include nothing except itself.  Any additional bits designed to gain "free energy" will only slow down rotation.  If you have a control wheel of identical design but no flaps, you would see this for yourself.  There is a reason bicyle and car wheels do not have shifting tubes of water or sand in them or other such nonsense - they do more harm than good.

I have seen Da Vinci's wheel design, although I have not built it, I can see from my experience the design would not work.

If perpetual motion is possible, the answer lies somewhere besides the gravity wheel.

The answer lies within the magic square constant sharing tables. I packed up my brass rods soon after I made the film clip in 2004. I kept 1 arm intact and salvaged the others to make the spiral.

Satisfying my curiosity about the feasibility of a Gravity Wheel, I started analysing the alleged 880 magic 4 squares.

My last post to besslerwheel.com was here http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=42580#42580 on Sep 01, 2007 at 1:05 pm

It may look the same but there is a definite difference in the force I had to apply to go counter clockwise relative to clockwise. In the finished version it may well rotate both ways because of the seen displacement.

I have made a 'Blue Peter' model to satisfy my curiosity, in making this prototype there were no suitable premises, engineering skills, precision machinery and in hindsight I used unsuitable materials (the brass bars I used were too soft).

The point really is... if my prototype can work this well, relatively speaking a badly constructed effort, then it MUST be worth investment of time, skills, and perhaps funding from government to a facility with the resources to build and it will work.

With proper testing, the mechanics of the length to rotation ratio can be applied to magnetic square waves. Anti-gravity can be obtained from the minimum application where minimum e=0*8^2 or 0*4^3.

Even the science fiction series Stargate Atlantis implies a link between a Zero Point Module (ZPM) and a magic 3 square, I've seen a repeat recently on sky TV.

I'm just fed up with sitting on a clip of video since 15 July 2004, 21:20:46 just because it has a number of 666 = 6*111, that could be the futures beast of burden.

Anybody wanna try and patent minimum e=mc^2?

Or patent 360 degrees as meaning 36 squares in a square, within each square there are four more equal squares. On closer examination each individual empty square can be identified as quadrants 1+2+3+4=10 therefore within one square is 10. 10*36=360. The empty 3^2 frame of the smaller four squares also has a total sum of 36, 0+1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8.

I think not!!!

Here is a video of the weight and real dimentions of the prototype arm.

It needs 1 to 111 squares, this has up to 75 squared... I counted.


http://www.metacafe.com/watch/813798/gravity_wheel_arm/