Author Topic: Peter Lindemann, The Mechanical Engine: A Re-Evolution of Bessler's Wheel (Read 40214 times)

BAHammer · « **Reply #30 on:** February 05, 2009, 07:10:43 PM »

Quote from: rlortie on February 03, 2009, 09:30:23 PM

Is this to imply that I can now talk freely of this device and receive recognition for my efforts for which I am not recognized for in this article?

Cc to Peter Lindemann via private mail
Ralph Lortie

The question might be something like ; How much downward force is generated by the pendulum while it is swinging ? I'd say very little. The force applied to it's point of rotation would be in the wrong dircection negating any hoped for gains.

wattsup · « **Reply #31 on:** February 05, 2009, 10:43:53 PM »

Actually, position #3 is not the only hold back. There will not be enough rotational momentum to get over that center incline that is supposed to unlatch the ball at position #3. Don't forget that if the wheel can unlatch, that is "work" being done above and beyond the turning aspect and that will be very difficult to achieve.

Also, like I said before, the balls have to be much bigger. The bigger the balls the greater will be the excess at #3. The most difficult part of this type of build will be one of wheel balance that has to be done with all balls held inward or outward at the same position and the incline removed. Only then can the balancing be done. 1 gram of unbalance could kill it right from the start.

I like these ideas because I find them a relaxing change to the regular stuff I do with coil and pulses, etc.

But what I am mostly puzzled about is why all this secrecy in not being able to disclose this or that. Do you really think this device deserves so much cloaking. Do you expect to make millions with such a wheel and why. I don't get it.

rlortie · « **Reply #32 on:** February 06, 2009, 02:52:00 AM »

Wattsup,

My name is Ralph Lortie, I have two shops attached to my house, one being for metal work and the other for woodworking. I do research on physical build gravity wheels as a full time hobby and second career. I work on a contingency basis, meaning I front all expenses. If a runner is developed I receive a share of the profits and recognition.

I am noted for building working models for those who do not have the skills or resources to build for them selves. Submittable designs are received in strict confidence. I cannot discuss them until receiving authorization from the submitter.

The only cloaking here is; I could not talk freely until that authorization was received. It does not refer to anyone other than me.

Ralph

BAHammer · « **Reply #33 on:** February 06, 2009, 01:15:13 PM »

Quote from: wattsup on February 05, 2009, 10:43:53 PM

Actually, position #3 is not the only hold back. There will not be enough rotational momentum to get over that center incline that is supposed to unlatch the ball at position #3. Don't forget that if the wheel can unlatch, that is "work" being done above and beyond the turning aspect and that will be very difficult to achieve.

Also, like I said before, the balls have to be much bigger. The bigger the balls the greater will be the excess at #3. The most difficult part of this type of build will be one of wheel balance that has to be done with all balls held inward or outward at the same position and the incline removed. Only then can the balancing be done. 1 gram of unbalance could kill it right from the start.

I like these ideas because I find them a relaxing change to the regular stuff I do with coil and pulses, etc.

But what I am mostly puzzled about is why all this secrecy in not being able to disclose this or that. Do you really think this device deserves so much cloaking. Do you expect to make millions with such a wheel and why. I don't get it.

wattsup,
These guys really should take the time to learn some engineering first.
When the fuckin weight swings out, it would pull the point it swings from in that direction.
Then, if it is caught and held, it would have noticeably changed it's center of gravity. None of these geniuses have figured that out.
Then after it rotates past bottom center, the weight would hang from it's pivot point. And when it rotates past top center, it can catch a latch to store kinetic potential energy until it could swing outward.
While it's being held in closer until it reaches the #2 position to swing, the weight at #3 and maybe #4 would need to be in an outward position to have an over all net positive effect.
Not sure how people keep missing obvious things like this. More money than brains ?

mindsweeper · « **Reply #34 on:** February 06, 2009, 01:33:20 PM »

here we go again, $:-\$

BAHammer · « **Reply #35 on:** February 06, 2009, 03:30:59 PM »

Quote from: mindsweeper on February 06, 2009, 01:33:20 PM

here we go again, $:-\$

Nope, just having some fun. Of course, since nobody did spot the obvious, I can expect some people to be upset over missing it. Especially since concerns over legalities were mentioned.
What is a neat trick that you missed is this ; I can now patent this design. This is because I improved it.
Specifically, by having a latch hold the weight until it's swing will help to create an over balance that will be maintained until the weight can swing free when it passes bottom center.
It's a simpler design and one that can work.
So yes, my last post was tongue in cheek up to a point. I would think that someone with Ralph's means would have tested a variation or 2. Had he done this, he might have realized what I did.
What is the "here we go again" is that there is a hierarchy in here that needs to be maintained. Simply put, the status quo has to be supported for no specific reason other than to have people who are considered experts at something they do not understand.
But they are credible

rlortie · « **Reply #36 on:** February 06, 2009, 05:39:17 PM »

BAHammer,

As per your explanation I ask that you look at the design and consider the weight position, without focusing on the cam and ratchets. You will find the same prime example of a non-runner as depicted in Bessler's drawings MT #1 through 5, 9, 10, and 11. It's commonly called 'Changing height for width.

If you believe you can patent this as a runner, I look forward to obtaining your patent drawings.

Ralph

wattsup · « **Reply #37 on:** February 06, 2009, 07:21:11 PM »

@rlortie

I had to ask the question and thank you for clearing up the your position. It is kind of crazy to think that someone could actually make a living at building perpetual motion systems, since we have never seen one that worked.

Do you have an estimated cost to build the design in question just out of curiosity.

The perpetual motion wheel will not happen if out of eight sections, only one or two is shifting. For it to have any chance at all, the design has to include the movement of all 8 sectors from one sector to the other. It will be this interaction between the left and right side of the wheel that will result in a perpetual motion design.

If you want to see a very close design that I made and will be redoing soon, you can look here. The main error, balls were not big enough to have enough influence over the total mass. Next wheel will not be in aluminium but in 1" plastic with 1" steel balls.
http://www.purco.qc.ca/ftp/Wattsups'%20stuff/eight-ball-wheel/

BAHammer · « **Reply #38 on:** February 06, 2009, 08:31:59 PM »

Quote from: rlortie on February 06, 2009, 05:39:17 PM

BAHammer,

As per your explanation I ask that you look at the design and consider the weight position, without focusing on the cam and ratchets. You will find the same prime example of a non-runner as depicted in Bessler's drawings MT #1 through 5, 9, 10, and 11. It's commonly called 'Changing height for width.

If you believe you can patent this as a runner, I look forward to obtaining your patent drawings.

Ralph

Ralph,
Later tonight I will modify the posted drawing. I'll also include an explanation.
In this forum, I don't take to much personally. An example of this is I have never told AB Hammer that my grandfather and great grandfather were silver and gold smiths. Plus they owned their own business of which they fabricated any parts needed for boats. This included working with generator/motor combinations. Needless to say, on my dad's side of the family, there are some capable people.
With me, doubt I'll ever meet anyone in this forum. Because of that, I have tried to stay with how a wheel can work. And with Bessler, he designed some of his mechanics to work a certain way. This does not mean that specific design would be capable of running, but it was designed to work a certain way.

rlortie · « **Reply #39 on:** February 06, 2009, 10:46:01 PM »

Wattsup,

Quote

Do you have an estimated cost to build the design in question just out of curiosity.

It is hard to estimate cost as it depends upon your availablity to find materials. I do a lot of dumpster diving, prowling recycle yards, thrift shops, yard sales etc. If I have to buy something not already in my inventory, I usually head for Ace Hardware, Northern Tool Supply, and McMaster Carr.
I do not calculate or figure in any time and have no need to pay for machining or fabrication.

Quote

The perpetual motion wheel will not happen if out of eight sections, only one or two is shifting. For it to have any chance at all, the design has to include the movement of all 8 sectors from one sector to the other. It will be this interaction between the left and right side of the wheel that will result in a perpetual motion design.

Once again we have a width for height scenario, one must keep in mind that symmetrical pinned weights always transfer the weight to the pin. I call it 'boot strapping' your attempting to pick yourself up by your on boots. This is where Ab Hammer's gravity grid becomes useful
.

Quote

If you want to see a very close design that I made and will be redoing soon, you can look here. The main error, balls were not big enough to have enough influence over the total mass. Next wheel will not be in aluminium but in 1" plastic with 1" steel balls.
http://www.purco.qc.ca/ftp/Wattsups'%20stuff/eight-ball-wheel/

Interesting site! and a display of craftsmanship, I will have to spend some free time browsing all your categories. As for your eight ball design, I believe you will find many variations of it. In fact it resembles some recent work that AB hammer has posted. I believe he will agree with me that it does not work and once again it takes you right back to Bessler's first drawings.

Adding more weight is not the answer, and Bessler spoke quite adamantly about those who attempt it. If it will not run, adding larger weights will not help. Rolling balls in cells all experience one thing in common other than not running. You move the weights out on the descent and concentrate them near the axle on the ascent. The weight to leverage ratio always comes out with the concentrated side balancing out or keeling at some point. Thus the term 'height for width'

Ralph

AB Hammer · « **Reply #40 on:** February 07, 2009, 12:56:04 AM »

wattsup

I looked at your sight and I saw some very good work there. As per what Ralph is teasing me on a wheel I called, googly eyed. I keep it around for fun any other use is it shows what not to do. LOL

BAHammer · « **Reply #41 on:** February 07, 2009, 04:26:23 PM »

Quote from: rlortie on February 06, 2009, 05:39:17 PM

BAHammer,

As per your explanation I ask that you look at the design and consider the weight position, without focusing on the cam and ratchets. You will find the same prime example of a non-runner as depicted in Bessler's drawings MT #1 through 5, 9, 10, and 11. It's commonly called 'Changing height for width.

If you believe you can patent this as a runner, I look forward to obtaining your patent drawings.

Ralph

Ralph,
You should get an idea from the modifications I made. When the weight passes top center, the current latch design would not hold the weight in place.
By having the latch also be a lever, a line can go from there to another latch/lever combination. It would be one that holds the weight in an over balanced position. Like Mt 20, it would have an over balanced, balanced and under balanced position.
When the weights force on the inner latch is greater than another weights force on it's latch, it would be able to lift the other weigfht a little allowing it to move free from it's latch and swing. This type of arrangement would link 2 weights together so there release points after passing top center can be controlled.
One trick to the design is that the weights can hang from their pivot points after passing near bottom center. The weights would also be able to swing between the supports (arms) that would be on both sides. This would allow the weights to swing onto the inner latch after they pass top center.
This type of set up would need a 6 or 8 weight configuration. This would allow the 2 bottom weights and the top 2 weights to basically cancel each other out. This would leave the weights around the level of the axle that would have a balanced and over balanced position.
And I doubt anyone would consider something like this to be a Bessler Wheel.

edited to change pics and at position 3, that weight would be a little more outward, possibly.
So, I guess 2 & 3 being over balanced could compensate for position 1 being under balanced, or something like that.

AB Hammer · « **Reply #42 on:** February 07, 2009, 06:38:28 PM »

Quote from: BAHammer on February 07, 2009, 04:26:23 PM

Ralph,
You should get an idea from the modifications I made. When the weight passes top center, the current latch design would not hold the weight in place.
By having the latch also be a lever, a line can go from there to another latch/lever combination. It would be one that holds the weight in an over balanced position. Like Mt 20, it would have an over balanced, balanced and under balanced position.
When the weights force on the inner latch is greater than another weights force on it's latch, it would be able to lift the other weigfht a little allowing it to move free from it's latch and swing. This type of arrangement would link 2 weights together so there release points after passing top center can be controlled.
One trick to the design is that the weights can hang from their pivot points after passing near bottom center. The weights would also be able to swing between the supports (arms) that would be on both sides. This would allow the weights to swing onto the inner latch after they pass top center.
This type of set up would need a 6 or 8 weight configuration. This would allow the 2 bottom weights and the top 2 weights to basically cancel each other out. This would leave the weights around the level of the axle that would have a balanced and over balanced position.
And I doubt anyone would consider something like this to be a Bessler Wheel.

edited to change pics and at position 3, that weight would be a little more outward, possibly.
So, I guess 2 & 3 being over balanced could compensate for position 1 being under balanced, or something like that.

LMAO ROLMAO You really need to build that Jim/BAHammer LMAO

hansvonlieven · « **Reply #43 on:** February 08, 2009, 07:32:26 AM »

Yes Alan

Hans von Lieven

BAHammer · « **Reply #44 on:** February 08, 2009, 01:16:54 PM »

Quote from: AB Hammer on February 07, 2009, 06:38:28 PM

LMAO ROLMAO You really need to build that Jim/BAHammer LMAO

@ Alan and Hans,
It would take a while, but I might.
Of course, I thought you would point out the obvious Alan. Everybody knows Bessler said that weights work in pairs. That doesn't happen in this design. I'd say with 8 independent weights, it's moving a lot of dead weight.
This means that every other weight can be removed. This would leave the design with 4 swinging weights.
Then the question becomes, how to move the swinging weights for maximum efficiency ? The simple answer is to use a long lever . Something that would be like a torque wrench.
Of course, the ratio aspect would need to be changed. For this, we'd have to go to "how a grandfather clock works". Basically, have the torque wrench turn one wheel and have a wheel next to that one turning the swinging weight.
Then the swinging weight can be held by a latch when it's over balanced position is attained. What we end up with is "Alex, I'll take what Mt drawing for $1,000.00". And the answer is "what is Mt 20".
I don't think this is really fair Alan. I mean really, I take time to consider what Bessler said and what principles he used. Of course, i also know mechanics and how grandfather clocks work :-)
By the way, with this configuration, if the wheel were to be pushed in the opposite direction, it would work the same way. The difference would be it would rely on an under balance instead of over balance.
Just as his clue states next to the drawing. In reality, it's being hitched on one side depends on which way it is rotating. Why ? Because how the lever is connected to the wheel it acts on doesn't change !!!
But will I build it ? No, this won't happen. I have my own personal responsibilities to take care of.

;

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Peter Lindemann, The Mechanical Engine: A Re-Evolution of Bessler's Wheel (Read 40214 times)

BAHammer

Re: Peter Lindemann, The Mechanical Engine: A Re-Evolution of Bessler's Wheel

wattsup

Re: Peter Lindemann, The Mechanical Engine: A Re-Evolution of Bessler's Wheel

rlortie

Re: Peter Lindemann, The Mechanical Engine: A Re-Evolution of Bessler's Wheel

BAHammer

Re: Peter Lindemann, The Mechanical Engine: A Re-Evolution of Bessler's Wheel

mindsweeper

Re: Peter Lindemann, The Mechanical Engine: A Re-Evolution of Bessler's Wheel

BAHammer

Re: Peter Lindemann, The Mechanical Engine: A Re-Evolution of Bessler's Wheel

rlortie

Re: Peter Lindemann, The Mechanical Engine: A Re-Evolution of Bessler's Wheel

wattsup

Re: Peter Lindemann, The Mechanical Engine: A Re-Evolution of Bessler's Wheel

BAHammer

Re: Peter Lindemann, The Mechanical Engine: A Re-Evolution of Bessler's Wheel

rlortie

Re: Peter Lindemann, The Mechanical Engine: A Re-Evolution of Bessler's Wheel

AB Hammer

Re: Peter Lindemann, The Mechanical Engine: A Re-Evolution of Bessler's Wheel

BAHammer

Re: Peter Lindemann, The Mechanical Engine: A Re-Evolution of Bessler's Wheel

AB Hammer

Re: Peter Lindemann, The Mechanical Engine: A Re-Evolution of Bessler's Wheel

hansvonlieven

Re: Peter Lindemann, The Mechanical Engine: A Re-Evolution of Bessler's Wheel

BAHammer

Re: Peter Lindemann, The Mechanical Engine: A Re-Evolution of Bessler's Wheel