# Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

## Gravity powered devices => Gravity powered devices => Topic started by: Alexioco on August 02, 2010, 02:07:05 AM

Title: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: Alexioco on August 02, 2010, 02:07:05 AM
My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion

True Balance:

An object that is in a current state of equilibrium or point of rest is not truly balanced, but supported. A very thin stick, accurately positioned to stand up vertically, is not truly balanced, but supported at the bass from which it rests, just like any object, but on a smaller scale. The state of any object that rests supported is dead! True balance is not obtained by an object at rest, but by movement! A person or animal standing has to make constant, slight adjustments to the position of their body weight to maintain their own balance. A thin, rolling wheel/hoop will maintain its own balance, until it stops rolling, and topples over. A spinning top will maintain its own balance, until it stops spinning, and topples over. The state of any moving object, maintaining its own balance, is very much alive!

The directional force of movement, of an object must, equal or overcome, at a right angle, to the direction of its own imbalance, thus resulting in self maintaining balance. The weaker the imbalance, the less energy needed. The greater the imbalance, the more energy needed.

Both the rolling wheel and the spinning top direct their force of movement in a forward, horizontal direction, which is at a right angle to the sideways, vertical direction of their imbalance. This also applies to a spinning coin, the rotation of the planets around the sun and riding a bicycle etcâ€¦

Perpetual Motion:

Weights placed within a wheel, positioned to keep the wheel overbalanced on one side, will not bring forth an infinite rotation, but cause a momentary turn of the wheel, bringing the centre of gravity to the bottom, just like that of a vertical standing object falling over; The state of the current weights are dead, they have no life in them.

Consider a spinning top, when still, it remains at rest, but once spinning; it is â€œbrought to lifeâ€. It spins, causing it to constantly shift/correct its own weight, in order to keep itself upright and balanced, as an inverted pendulum. It has in fact, become independent, with a mind of its own.

Now consider a still wheel, with internal weights resting in positions to overbalance the wheel. Upon releasing the wheel, it starts to spin/revolve, causing the internal resting weights to be â€œbrought to lifeâ€, they become upright and balanced, causing them to constantly shift/correct their weight positions as the wheel spins in order to maintain their upright balance (just like that of a spinning top) which results in the overbalancing and turning of the wheel. So long as the wheel is spinning, the weights are kept upright and balanced, causing their positions to keep the wheel spinning.

The spinning top also wonâ€™t fall down because it directs a same or greater amount force of movement in an outward, horizontal direction, which is at right angles to the sideways, vertical direction of its imbalance. The same must also apply to the weights and the rotation within the wheel.

P.S If you look at the toys page, it depicts the following:

1. An upward direction of the scissor jack.
2.Two balanced hammer men working in pairs as one goes up and out, the other goes down and in.
3.A Spinning Top
4.I'm unsure on the other two right hand objects, i am working on that at the moment.

I believe that the toys page is giving examples of the different directions and positions of forces used within his wheel.

Alex
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: The Eskimo Quinn on August 02, 2010, 03:35:08 AM
I like this question so much I am going to write an article on for the website with its own page, called can one man change the world

Done

http://archurian.com/gpage1.html
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: Alexioco on August 02, 2010, 05:35:04 PM
I read it, its quite an interesting statment that a pebble thrown into the sea does infact change the sea height. My theory is just an idea in trying to figure out how to raise a weight upwards lightly and spinning objects seem to be a possible answer.

Alex
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: The Eskimo Quinn on August 02, 2010, 11:01:04 PM
Well if mankind get get rid of the pride factor, many of these things would be studied in their true form, the planet is only rated north south because we first inhabited the northern regions, so that must of course be the top of the world, but I believe it is the bottom of the planet, a spinning object like a tornado has the flare at the top, so too a spinning mass if it cools has the flare at the top, it cannot cool in a pear shape like our planet with the smaller end at the top, panning for gold shows this too with the water flare at the top when spinning and the magnetite settled at the bottom, where is the greatest concentration of magnetite on the planet? the north pole or the bottom of the planet. if you can remove pride an examine this as it really is, it shows that optical illusion that all force and weight are flung out as false with the heavier components being caught at the base, if you wish to control or extract energy from such an action you must first understand the real truth with spinning objects, if you wish to move heavy weights within them using horizontal motion
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: Alexioco on August 03, 2010, 12:47:03 AM
What is the truth of a spinning object? All I know is about the angular velocity.

Alex
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: AB Hammer on August 03, 2010, 03:25:35 AM
Alex

I just spent 12 hours armoring and 5 hours of it polishing stainless steel to a mirror finish in 104 temperature. 7 Days left of armor hell then a long nights sleep and maybe my brain will work for deciphering again.  :-\  LOL

Alan

Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: The Eskimo Quinn on August 03, 2010, 04:49:25 AM
yes it is quite amaiing that both gravity and an anti gravity effect are both cuased by spinning objects,  science shops have the small spinning wheel that balances on a pin, velocity causes the effect but without weight there would be no effect, so the weight must transfer. I see the goal of your question. how can you use the effect to alter the weight displacement of an object to gain or lose weight in a device to create an imbalance or shift. I will have to think about this for you
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: The Eskimo Quinn on August 03, 2010, 05:17:18 AM
yes i have thought about this for 10 mins or so and believe i have the design concept for your machine.

Now to first prove the theory is correct before spending any large sum of money, go to a national geographic shop or similar science shop and buy two of those string spun metal tops that balance on a point when spun, get a digital scale a weigh it, now spin the top and place it on the digital scale, by my logic it should now read lighter, if this is the case which it should be, then you can build a machine.

Now take a wheel with 3 full or 6 radial arms, at the end of each arm would be a motorised top with a heavy flywheel sitting horizontal, as each arm passed the 6 o'clock point it would receive a charge to keep it spinning, the newly charged tops will always be on the left and travelling faster than those slowing on the right after 12 o'clock thus should always be lighter, the energy from the main wheel can be used to power the small top engines, naturally all engines would need to be running for some time to get a flywheel effect happening to then rely on the tapping effect of the charge. We shall call it The "Triple AAA flyer" :) (ALEX,ARCHER,ABHAMMER) hope this helps with the use of this physics effect have fun with it.

NB: you should not that the tops may only be able to sit supported in a cage not be fixed to the arm, this design of the top is somewhat complicated but certainly well withing normal mechanics, the charge can be simple brushes like an AFX car or carbon brushes on springs like a drill. the ultimate would be to have a huge magnetic array on the central tower and coils on the arms proving the power from induction for the tapping effect.

PS: Sorry forgot to tell you why to buy 2 tops, so you can go home get a small pipe bracket/u bracket for walls get a sligthly smaller piece of pipe for you axle and place a ruler on top for your see saw, now simply put small divots in each end and tape one on, now make sure the other is balanced when in the divot or for best effect lower than balance, give it a spin and place it on at level or lower, and it should rise up past level, a working machine to prove your theory to everyone who ever questions that you are a clever guy, whether you ever build a full machine or not, you can prove your theory works in the real world
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: The Eskimo Quinn on August 03, 2010, 06:24:22 AM
I was thinking about how in glass and chrome how really awesome this machine would look, a giant rotating wheel with these multiple arms, with discus shape glass flywheels spinning in the end of each arm, surrounded by chrome cages that are held suspended radially from 45 degrees above the keep the disk level, the motor is fixed to the cage to remove alternate rotation, with the spike protruding from the base of the top sitting in a divot on a plate, a plate which  like a ferris wheel car sits on its own axle that remains level no matter the position of the arm, without the sliding and clunking of moving weights would be almost silent running but for the hum of the small motors. naturally a retail version would have the plate as the power source connection just like the new power mats for phones,  I guess that means we can expect it to look nothing like that at all by the time mechanical practicalities set in  ;D
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: Alexioco on August 03, 2010, 11:35:40 AM
Your idea seems good, but I was thinking more of using a wheel with weights inside as one giant Tippe Top, so that as the wheel and weights within rotate, the weights are caused to flip upwards and keep themselves upwards and balanced just as the Tippe Top flips the heavy side up and balances. So long as the Tippe Top is spinning, it keeps up and balanced, so must the wheel and weights, so long as the weights spin around, the now balanced weights at 6 and 12 flip up which in turn keeps the wheel spinning. The spinning top directs its force of movement in an outward, horizontal direction, and its imbalance is an sideways/outward vertical direction therefore it cannot fall. Same goes for a rolling wheel which stays up until it stops rolling. So the weights inside the wheel must want to stay upwards and balanced so long as the wheel is turning which of course, the weights keeps it turning. I'm still trying to realize all of this within a wheel and weights. I have already made one build to test. For the when the wheel is spinning, i have attached two opposing weights hinged to lean up and down at a right angle to the wheels rotation so that hopefully the weight at the bottom and top flip up due to the angular velocity, but the weight are caused so fly outward at the bottom and outward at the top.

its good that they fly out at the top, but they need to flip in at the bottom and stay up and in just like the rolling hoop refuses to tilt or topple over due to its direction of force. any suggestion? Ill send pics of what my build is like once i get a cam. I have done quite a lot of building lately...

Alex
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: Alexioco on August 03, 2010, 02:09:24 PM
Ok, here is my latest thought of a possibility to incorporate the Tippe Top (kind of spinning top that flips its weight up when spinning) into a wheel with two equal weights. The hinged pivot allows the weights to swing vertically up and down as the wheel spins. The crossbar which connects the two equal weights makes them both swing up and down at the same time.

Description: Once the wheel is spun, it causes the weights to constantly oppose each other as the left hand weight (in the drawn position) wants to swing down and the right hand weight wants to stay/swing up due to the momentum of their circular rotation. Because the weights want to fly out in different directions and are yet connected to each other, this causes them to balance out. They should then become easier to lift both weights vertically up as shown in the drawing in order to keep them above the axle rather than below, just like a Tippe Top which insists on remaining above its fulcrum point rather than below.

P.S If you look on the toys page, you will see that the two hammer men are balanced and opposing each other via their connection, but underneath the is a depiction of a spinning top and on the left a scissor jack that points upwards. This may indicate exactly what this wheel is trying to achieve. The hammer men/weights are only balanced and opposing each other when in a spinning/rotating system which causes them to want to rise up. Note that the spinning top is drawn balanced meaning it must be spinning and that is why the hammer men are balanced causing them to rise up according to the scissor jack depiction.

Alex
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: The Eskimo Quinn on August 04, 2010, 08:26:53 AM
I am not sure i understand this fully, my problem is with a capture and recover system when you have an imbalance, is that the objects that recover the system only does so when they start to fall, the issue i see is for the rectifier for want of a better word only works when the high speed momentum needed in a spinning top model is all but spent, and whilst a rectifier may return a balance it cannot respeed the wheel, it can only rectify the balance until all speed is gone. The problem is that the rectifiers/hammer men do nothing when the wheel is running so there is no tapping effect on the flywheel so to speak to keep up the speed, so the re-balance or rectification only works when the machine has all but run down. It strikes me as a similar issue that pendulum wheels have, and that is the slow swinging nature of the pendulum cannot alter.

I may misunderstand, i think 3d would probably help, my drawing sucks too :)
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: Alexioco on August 05, 2010, 11:03:07 AM
The above picture I have built and tested now, ill explain again what it was supposed to do before i tell you what it does lol...

Supposed to function: The two weights can lean up and down in a vertical manner at right angles to the wheel. When the wheel is spun, both weights are caused to want to fly out in opposite directions in the wheel but they cannot as they are attached. For instance, the right hand weight wants to fly up where the left hand weight tries to slam down. This causes them to keep each other in equilibrium as the wheel spins therefore becoming easier to keep lifting up.

What happened: when the wheel was spun, both weights were thrown out and kept on the outside of the wheel which is nothing new. When the wheel slowed to a certain RPM, the two weights leans out more but didn't drop so it seems they do become lighter, when slower, they would drop into the center axle at the top, then to the rim at the bottom. but at a certain rpm, it seems possible to manipulate them...

Alex
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: The Eskimo Quinn on August 05, 2010, 10:55:31 PM
OK now i see your theory, the problem is centrifuge has this kinda of switch point where the speed must be high and well past your manipulation point, you see the inertia to throw an object by weight is equally bound within the weight of the centrifuge, it must first have accounted for all of its own weight, it is this point where gravity weight is all but suspended, at slower revolutions where objects are manageable, the speed is insufficient to create the centrifuge lift needed to create light v heavy
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: Alexioco on August 06, 2010, 01:35:56 AM
Ah thanks for the input, seems like that is a failure then lol...

So what ways are there to cause two weights to act like a tippe top in a rotating wheel, there must be a way to do that...

Alex
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: christo4_99 on September 10, 2010, 05:39:43 AM

I believe that the toys page is giving examples of the different directions and positions of forces used within his wheel.

Alex
i have a comment...imo:you are correct about the toys page being a concept that is used in the wheels...what you have to figure out though is the two apparent weight differences in the anvils and hammers and how they could possibly cause each other to continually rotate...it is the anvils,not the hammers that you should concern yourself with.
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: Alexioco on September 13, 2010, 01:08:55 PM
I actually have never considered the anvils as I have always though them irrelevant which is kind of silly of me. So the anvils may also be weights?

Alex
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: christo4_99 on September 13, 2010, 06:00:36 PM
I actually have never considered the anvils as I have always though them irrelevant which is kind of silly of me. So the anvils may also be weights?

Alex
what you have in the toys anvils/hammers drawing is three weights per mechanism,attached at the "handles",one mechanism is overall lighter than the other but also the lighter one is built with longer poles...also,the lighter hammermen seem to be twisted clockwise like a wound spring...so...to put it in the form of instruction:the heavier weights control the lighter weights in both cases,the lighter weights can cause just as much force as the heavy weights if a spring is employed since they have a different leverage advantage...
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: Alexioco on September 13, 2010, 06:15:37 PM
But what happens when the spring is unwound? Its got to be wound again...

Alex
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: christo4_99 on September 13, 2010, 06:54:08 PM
But what happens when the spring is unwound? Its got to be wound again...

Alex
according to my theory of how bessler acheived P.M. it's not a question of how the springs get wound it's a question of what are the anvils...and saying that...how do you lift weights without other weights falling?see...because in my theory/design the weights are lifted and lowered by forces/weights that don't necessarily affect the center of gravity(= the anvils)...what i will not disclose is what i think the anvils represent...
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: Alexioco on September 15, 2010, 02:35:31 PM
The anvils may represent a weight. Because the two hammers are in a state of balance, the anvil being the 3rd weight would be enough to upset the two hammers and throw them out of balance. Or the hammer men may be the driving forces or the anvil (main weight) but i don't really agree with myself that the anvil is a weight because weights acted in pairs according to Bessler.
The anvil could be
1. an axle
2. a surface in which weights bounce off like an impulse
3. a simple rest for the weights as they swap

Bessler states that an anvil receives many blows, so they may represent some kind of contact point...

Alex
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: AB Hammer on September 15, 2010, 10:51:07 PM
Greetings Alex and all

Lets look at what is an anvil. Most people think of a heavy piece of steel with a flat top and 1 or 2 horns off of it. This is only the basic smiths anvil. There are many types of anvils from round to square, from long to short, from steel to wood. Yes even wood can be an anvil. Bessler shows the hammer toys twice but in two slightly different designs.  This is just something to consider when thinking about anvils.

PS the toys have wooden anvils.

Alan
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: Dr on September 16, 2010, 02:32:11 AM
You know its kind of funny in a way, about the toys page!! But I have heard it explained many different ways, But no one really knows what Bessler had in mind, I believe the little men represent Heavy and Full (on one side of the wheel) and light and empty (on the other side). But it could just as well have something to do with a cord wrapped around an axle, or maybe a coiled spring, of course this a guess at best!!!
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: christo4_99 on September 16, 2010, 04:09:41 AM
I agree with ABH.the anvils are made of wood.but unless someone gets a little further into my theory i will not say more.
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: Alexioco on September 16, 2010, 06:21:37 PM
I'm afraid i cant be bothered playing guessing games. If you have something special then, well done, if not, oh well... Keep up the good work any old how  :)

Alex
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: AB Hammer on September 17, 2010, 04:38:44 AM
I have to agree with Alex on this as well. Guessing games are not good for we have wheels to build and not give it all away, or show carelessly before their time.

Alan
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: MT on September 23, 2010, 11:50:15 PM
I agree with ABH.the anvils are made of wood.but unless someone gets a little further into my theory i will not say more.

Hi christo4_99 and all
Thanks for all the posts, reading them got an idea what anvil can be and how of universal motion can be done (at least theoretically)

For reference I attached original toys page. To me image represents two bistable switches and as you said top heavier and bottom lighter. You mentioned 3 weights per switch. Ok one weight can be anvil but it is not clear that other 2 weights are on handles or on toys itself but I would say weights at toys make more sense.

To me anvil looks like a mean to receive and transfer hammer kick to something else e.g. other switch. I think both anvils are meant to be firmly connected and thus when top switch flips also bottom does and vice versa. Yes bottom has more leverage but it also has longer poles!

Assuming:
- topswitch more weight than bottom at all times
- bottom switch has enough kick to flip top
- both switches operate solely on gravity
- top switch will never get to bottom or past a point where it is not practically switchable

a pendulum can be imagined to represent a "universal motion" of Bessler.

Tried to draw principle of it on attached picture. It represents starting position. In this position as top is heavier it rotates right. At certain angle (say 2hours) bottom flips and kick from it flips top also. Wheel should stop rotating right and start to move left. It passes 12 and again on certain angle on left side (say 10hours) bottom flips then also top flips and process continues. Wheel will oscillate using weight difference between top and bottom switch.

OK so far theory, question is it possible also design it? One thing, it is clear that top switch angle (angle between its two stable positions) should be bigger than bottom or it will reach angle (while rotating together with the wheel) where it will not be stable when kicked back.

Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: christo4_99 on September 24, 2010, 02:24:16 AM
to address this last post...i suppose you are guessing which way my theory goes with the toys page.it's not that simple.just let me say this: there are "lowly tendencies" which Bessler mentioned and i.m.o. what he was talking about is people tend to think alike...that is,he said a wheel is not a wheel and that's how he thought of it so you should too if you want to figure it out.so start from the beginning.all these designs that never worked are based on a wheel.i know this is vague but it's my theory and it's pretty simple just not as simple as a wheel with just weights and levers.you just have to think differently about things.now i will present a clue in the direction of how i developed my theory and if I'm wrong anyone is welcomed to correct me because i haven't read every post on every board concerning the Bessler wheel.here it is in the form of a question:why is it that the wheel was covered with a cloth?the default answer seems to be that the cloth was being used to conceal the mechanism.this may be true but to me it is very important to consider what we actually know to be true of the wheel.in other words i think the design itself incorporated the cloth for a very specific reason.and along these lines i have developed my theory.i have Incorporated ,as thoroughly as i can what we actually "know" about Besslers wheels and i have tried to find meaning in the things that he said about his principle of excess weight.and further i will give you exactly my concept of excess weight and my interpretation of how Bessler meant it.if we could build a wheel and constantly add weight where it is needed and remove it where it is not needed we would have this "excess weight".that's the principle.my interpretation of what Bessler meant is this:if you can find a way to raise and lower weights using weights that don't affect the center of gravity then you have "excess weight."now saying much more than this is really getting to the point where i am basically giving away my theory.i hope this satisfies those who think i am playing guessing games.
Title: Re: My Theory: The Nature of True Balance & Perpetual Motion
Post by: MT on September 24, 2010, 06:58:56 PM
to address this last post...i suppose you are guessing which way my theory goes with the toys page.it's not that simple.just let me say this: there are "lowly tendencies" which Bessler mentioned and i.m.o. what he was talking about is people tend to think alike...that is,he said a wheel is not a wheel and that's how he thought of it so you should too if you want to figure it out.so start from the beginning.all these designs that never worked are based on a wheel.i know this is vague but it's my theory and it's pretty simple just not as simple as a wheel with just weights and levers.you just have to think differently about things.now i will present a clue in the direction of how i developed my theory and if I'm wrong anyone is welcomed to correct me because i haven't read every post on every board concerning the Bessler wheel.here it is in the form of a question:why is it that the wheel was covered with a cloth?the default answer seems to be that the cloth was being used to conceal the mechanism.this may be true but to me it is very important to consider what we actually know to be true of the wheel.in other words i think the design itself incorporated the cloth for a very specific reason.and along these lines i have developed my theory.i have Incorporated ,as thoroughly as i can what we actually "know" about Besslers wheels and i have tried to find meaning in the things that he said about his principle of excess weight.and further i will give you exactly my concept of excess weight and my interpretation of how Bessler meant it.if we could build a wheel and constantly add weight where it is needed and remove it where it is not needed we would have this "excess weight".that's the principle.my interpretation of what Bessler meant is this:if you can find a way to raise and lower weights using weights that don't affect the center of gravity then you have "excess weight."now saying much more than this is really getting to the point where i am basically giving away my theory.i hope this satisfies those who think i am playing guessing games.

Thanks for the tip, I think cloth cover was used as his whell needed to breathe. Better breathing = less air resistance for fast falling/casted weights ...