Perpetual Motion Simplified - Asymmetrical Mechanical Machines

[soundiceuk]

Yes that is for sure and Yes I did watched the video but all I see is a freely turning wheel with weighs that will fly out when turned. To that design I add one-way-bearings, to hold the weights in an extended position, which did not work.

Hi Mad Scientist, interesting story.

You seem very experienced with the idea of perpetual motion, therefore I cannot be explaining myself very well through my writings, illustrations and videos because I don't feel like we are on the same page yet.

If you watch the 1st 5 seconds of the video, you can clearly see the arms have one way bearings.



Yes, even though they are fitted, the device comes to a stop.

But what happens as it does? The weight on the right side will move from a straight out 3 o’clock position to straight down 6 o’clock position. At the same time the left side weight will continue to point to the center and will now be pointing straight down from the 12 o’clock position. Thus you have reached a stable equilibrium point and there will be not movement. Even if you manually move the top weight to a straight up position the weights would now be in balance but there still would be no movement.

Exactly, the device reaches a stable equilibrium point in the video and this is why it stops.

This is my point.

The center of mass is no longer in a position to overcome the friction.

When I look at your last drawing I honestly do not see what is supposed to be happening, I’m won’t say it can’t work, I just don’t see how it is supposed to work.

The new design overcomes that issue by keeping the weights horizontal all the way around.

What do you see will happen based on the drawing so far?

You will have to use your imagination, that a frame, hub and main bearings are there.

Best regards,

Paul

[soundiceuk]

This might help a little until the design is more complete:

[citfta]

Can't work

Hi Paul,

I have been following your progress for the last year or so. You started out with a wheel that had the weights being kicked out by a motor turning a small wheel. The kick plus the centrifugal force caused the weights to move all the way out and then they helped move the wheel until they were all the way at the bottom. Of course the one-way bearings kept the weight in the right position. That design appeared to have some hope of success.

Now you are trying to move the weight be using a cam. This idea appears to me anyway as having no hope of working. Look at the drawing you just posted. The only time gravity can work on the weight is when the weight is at the 3 o'clock position. All the rest of the time the weight is riding on the cam. And as soon as the weight reaches the bottom the cam is working to raise the weight at the same speed as the wheel is turning.

Before you invest a lot of money into making a large version of this at least try to get a simulation to work or build a smaller version to try your idea. I haven't actually tried to build any version of a gravity wheel but I have not seen anywhere a wheel that used cams that showed any sign of working.

Respectfully, Carroll

[Mad Scientist]

You seem very experienced with the idea of perpetual motion

Yea I am. But I don’t claim to be an expert. As I mentioned early on, “it is simply an area that has always fascinated me”. Thus I’ve studied every design I have run across. From the incredible simple (a round cardboard disc, with a hole in the middle, you then start writing the numbers "6" one below the other all along the edge of the disc. When done you see 6’s on one and 9’s on the other. 9 being a bigger number then 6 will cause the disc to turn. ) Thus I’ve looked at outright scams to those honestly trying to make something work.

This might help a little until the design is more complete:

So OK I finally see what you are trying to do.

The new design overcomes that issue by keeping the weights horizontal all the way around.

And here is what I believed you have done. You have come up with an alternative way of building the device in my drawing.

Instead of the chain and sprockets to keep the weights in a horizontal position you are using the one-way-bearings and a cam.

So let’s try this. Pick a point mid-way between the one-way-bearing and the cam follower and for simplicity we will assume this is where all operating torque is at. Now take your cad program and rotate the flywheel and plot what happens to this point. I predict you will get a perfect circle.

Do the same thing for the other arm and you should get another circle, the same size and concentric with the first one.

Thus if the arm on the right moves down a ˝ inch the arm on the left will move up ˝ inch.
If the right goes down 1 inch the left will go up 1 inch.

In other words the system will spin freely but will be in perfect balance.

[soundiceuk]

The only time gravity can work on the weight is when the weight is at the 3 o'clock position. All the rest of the time the weight is riding on the cam. And as soon as the weight reaches the bottom the cam is working to raise the weight at the same speed as the wheel is turning.

Hi Carroll, good to hear you have been following progress.

Here is how I see it.



The weight is resting on the table and it wants to go through it, but cannot because it is supported. It still wants to go through it though because the centre of mass is not central.

Here is a similar example.

Goto 5:38 in this video

Center of Mass - Science Theater 29
Center of Mass - Science Theater 29 - YouTube

The plank still wants to go into the table but cannot. We are using a spindle instead, therefore it rotates and a new reference frame happens every nano second or even smaller.

Before you invest a lot of money into making a large version of this at least try to get a simulation to work or build a smaller version to try your idea. I haven't actually tried to build any version of a gravity wheel but I have not seen anywhere a wheel that used cams that showed any sign of working.

Unfortunately I have witnessed proof and come to the conclusion that mass is of the utmost importance to obtain useful torque or even overcome the friction of the main bearings. I'm building to show something extreme. Even if that is an extreme financial loss.

Best regards,

Paul

[soundiceuk]

And here is what I believed you have done. You have come up with an alternative way of building the device in my drawing.

Instead of the chain and sprockets to keep the weights in a horizontal position you are using the one-way-bearings and a cam.

This is the other method but the design is unrefined into a perfect circle pattern for the box cam.



It was knocked up quickly by a mechanical engineer with 30 years experience who wasn't sure if it would or wouldn't work even though he has been indoctrinated that it can never work.

I've been asking questions around a large number of mechanical engineers and it appears we have a mass indoctrination on a heavy scale.

These are the guys that would run with a design and make it a better if they knew the working requirements for building a perpetual motion machine.

Ok bearings don't last forever. The planet isn't going to keep spinning forever either.

A new statement that sums up what a perpetual motion machine is, I think is needed.

It's another "free energy" buzz word that really has no definition in law or common place knowledge.

It gets used against the genuine "free energy" crowd by the people who enslaved us in the first place.

They don't want a device like this getting out into the public knowledge.

It's just too simple.

So let’s try this. Pick a point mid-way between the one-way-bearing and the cam follower and for simplicity we will assume this is where all operating torque is at. Now take your cad program and rotate the flywheel and plot what happens to this point. I predict you will get a perfect circle.

Do the same thing for the other arm and you should get another circle, the same size and concentric with the first one.

Thus if the arm on the right moves down a ˝ inch the arm on the left will move up ˝ inch.
If the right goes down 1 inch the left will go up 1 inch.

In other words the system will spin freely but will be in perfect balance.

I don't understand your thinking on this one because I felt the torque in my hands of the prototype in the video.

If I put the arms horizontally at any point there was bags of torque on the main shaft. The device is a powerful lever.

How can that be perfect balance?

I've torqued 1000's of wheels in my life, this was pokey.

I guess that's why the engineering company has teamed up with me. They have felt the torque in there hands too.



Anyone know an easy way to measure it?

I was thinking fit a bolt into the mainshaft and measure it with something.

More research needed in that department.

Best regards,

Paul


Ps. Sorry if I sound a bit over optimistic about it. I don't mind someone showing me where I've gone wrong here.

Maybe save me from a fall?

[soundiceuk]

Yes, one is Besslers and the other is buzzsaw wheel. Both were seen in operation by many people who swore to their self running characteristics. The Buzzsaw wheel was found, cleaned, put back together but still they couldn't get it to work. Those who saw it work claimed it ran a sawmill, which required quite a bit of power. It seems there was some missing parts and no one knows remembered what those parts were. I haven't built either one of these but I have built several others. One of the candidates for self running I've built is the rolling ball motor. Another is a D design chain rolling on three cogs, where the long round part is much longer than the short verticle reloading side. Here is a picture of the rolling ball. Good Luck. stealth

I've read some of the Bessler site Johann Bessler - Orffyreus

I could never get my head around exactly what he was doing. Something similar but using a different method to accomplish it.

At the end of the day, if it worked as witnesses said, it must have produced torque that was coming from environmental energy, very old skool mechanics and therefore open system thermodynamics.

It just hadn't got a name and no one understood it but him. Even though he didn't have a name for it.

If you were the richest families in the world and you made your most profit from slavery, you wouldn't want the slaves of the world to break free and empower themselves.

Oh, no, no.... that couldn't be allowed to happen.

From the Bessler wheel timeline:

Johann Bessler - Orffyreus - Timeline of Events

"Bessler, age 65, fell to his death while working on the Fürstenburg windmill. "


What a coincidence.

Hmmm... I can think of a few other names of inventors that accomplished something very special!!! Rudolf Diesel and Stanley Meyer spring to mind.


I've never studied the Buzzsaw. Where did you get the diagram?

It seems it needs a lot of mass for it to work.

I feel that I've seen it on youtube somewhere rotating, but a little model. I wasn't sure if it was powered by another source.

A small model could not have the mass to get the inertia.

It is like stopping a toy car at 100mph or a bullet train in comparison if the device was scaled up.

I bet it would be really noisy, so it would need to be coated with urethane or the noise would be horrendous.

Sometimes the answers are just right in front of your face, but you've been educated not to look without even realising.

A swindle.

A scam.

Deceit.

I recommend anyone who is reading this to start watching this website from the start.

Servant King

I've only watched the first two videos so far and I'm absolutely dying to watch all of them.

Slightly off topic, but hey the Energetic Forum is the place for stuff like this.

All the best,

Paul

[soundiceuk]

Another good center of mass video:

Center of Mass and Stability - YouTube

I don't remember this being taught at school:

definition - What is the difference between center of mass and center of gravity? - Physics Stack Exchange

[Mad Scientist]

This is the other method but the design is unrefined into a perfect circle pattern for the box cam.
I have played a bit with cam operated weights but never had any real success.



It was knocked up quickly by a mechanical engineer with 30 years experience who wasn't sure if it would or wouldn't work even though he has been indoctrinated that it can never work. No surprise there.

I've been asking questions around a large number of mechanical engineers and it appears we have a mass indoctrination on a heavy scale.
Thinking outside the box is scarey and must be avoided.


These are the guys that would run with a design and make it a better if they knew the working requirements for building a perpetual motion machine.

Ok bearings don't last forever. The planet isn't going to keep spinning forever either.

A new statement that sums up what a perpetual motion machine is, I think is needed.

It's another "free energy" buzz word that really has no definition in law or common place knowledge.

It gets used against the genuine "free energy" crowd by the people who enslaved us in the first place.
For me any device that can run for an extended period of time without requiring extensive maintenance or needing continual adjustments qualifies as free energy.

They don't want a device like this getting out into the public knowledge.
There is no question that TPTB would not like free energy.
It's just too simple.




I don't understand your thinking on this one because I felt the torque in my hands of the prototype in the video.


If I put the arms horizontally at any point there was bags of torque on the main shaft. The device is a powerful lever.
I have no doubt of that, I'm sure there was plenty of torque.
How can that be perfect balance?
Because at that point it was not in balance. Because you did not have cam in place. I suspect(?) that with the cam in place it looks to me like you will have something similar to my drawing and that does not work.
I've torqued 1000's of wheels in my life, this was pokey.

I guess that's why the engineering company has teamed up with me. They have felt the torque in there hands too.



Anyone know an easy way to measure it? Yes!

I was thinking fit a bolt into the mainshaft and measure it with something.
Bolt a 1 foot long bar to the output shaft. Let its free end rest on a scale. If you twist the output shaft and the scale reads one pound you are producing one foot pound of torque.

More research needed in that department.

Best regards,

Paul


Ps. Sorry if I sound a bit over optimistic about it. I don't mind someone showing me where I've gone wrong here.

Maybe save me from a fall?

One needs to keep an open mind, but not so open that their brains fall out.

[Stealth]

There is a thread titled Buzzsaw April 2009 and August 2010, along with other gravity machines. There are many articles about it on the internet. A few have tried to replicate it, unsuccessfully. From my perspective, I believe there are some parts missing, maybe intentionally. Once they were finished with it, they probably cannibalized some parts for other projects. I have done this many times myself. Mostly what I build is toy sized machines, mostly to prove the principles of their operation, then when I am satisfied with the conclusion, I sometimes cannibalize some of the parts for another build. I have built many gravity and magnetic motors over the years. I only have two complete, not cannibalized. These two I use for demonstrations to show other people who are like minded. One is the rolling ball wheel(gravity), the other is a TOMY(magnetic linear motor). My problem is the amount of time in which I have to work on these projects. I have many CAD designs but not the time to build them. Good Luck. stealth

[Guruji]

This is very similar to this working Wheel:


Gravity Wheel - Perpetual Motion Machine - YouTube

[soundiceuk]

Hi Guruji, I started GravInert Research Trust to provide an online diary to document our progress on Mikhail's discovery.

One of the sections is specifically for collecting "Similar Technologies":

SIMILAR TECHNOLOGIES

There are a growing number of machines there, including the one you just posted. Some look ultra expensive and time consuming to build.

Something deep inside me says that there are dark forces working hard to create ambiguous devices to confuse, distract and misinform "free energy" researchers.

Creating the illusion that is is extremely complicated and expensive to venture this way.

ESPECIALLY WITH THIS SPECIFIC AREA OF RESEARCH THAT HAS THE MOST ABILITY TO UNHINGE THIER EVIL PLANS!!!

Hence all the "PERPETUAL MOTION", "FREE ENERGY" buzz words and GIGANTIC MASS INDOCTRINATION of MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. Who are blatantly educated heavily via laws and maths that this is 100% impossible.

They fight HEAVILY to protect their beliefs! I have witnessed this first hand.

They are hypnotized!

Luckily, some have lived enough to witness something that has swayed their viewpoint and snapped them out of their trance.


Fortunately too many of us like a good puzzle and can slice through the misinformation, disinformation and BS to shed light on the reality and truth.


I do think the device you posted has potential, BUT a limited RPM range.

I do not think it can ever be optimal, which is where I am shooting for.

Best regards,

Paul

[soundiceuk]

Because at that point it was not in balance. Because you did not have cam in place. I suspect(?) that with the cam in place it looks to me like you will have something similar to my drawing and that does not work.

Hi Mad Scientist, mathematically can you show me one point of the rotation where the centre of mass is not on the right hand side of the spindle (fulcrum).

Bear in mind your design had one arm that went around. This design has a symmetrical wheel instead and arms that can be extended way past the centre of the spindle (fulcrum), especially if the wheel diameter is large.

(I've been holding that design back at this stage )

Bolt a 1 foot long bar to the output shaft. Let its free end rest on a scale. If you twist the output shaft and the scale reads one pound you are producing one foot pound of torque.

I'm very grateful for this information.

You have given me something to do.

I had a clue how to do the maths for a parallel postion at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock.

Doing something physical with scales suits me much better.

The torque is considerable at every point of the rotation with the arms horizontal.

I'm guessing using a meter length would give me newton meters if I used KG on the scales?

Best regards,

Paul

[soundiceuk]

Hi, anyone good at maths here. My skills are limited in this department.

At the moment I'm assuming that in order to work out the torque on the mainshaft with the arms horizontal and parallel I would work out the leverage for the left arm from its pivot, then add it to the leverage for the arm on the right.

The arm on the right would have a much larger distance.

I'm getting a figure of around 98 ft. lbs. or 133nm of torque.


I assume this position is the highest torque figure it can be and the lowest it can be is with both arms horizontal and parallel at 12 and 6 o'clock.

50 ft. lbs. or 67nm of torque.

This would mean there is a positive waveform of torque if the weights can be held horizontal.

If these figure are anywhere near right, that's a lot of torque for a very small wheel with a diameter under 0.5m or 19.68".

If I were to add another two weights, the torque figure should be the sum of the two.

200nm or 148 ft. lbs. of torque.

I think that is a lot of torque.

Any input welcome here.

Best regards,

Paul

[soundiceuk]

Just when I thought it cannot get much simpler, Charlie aka Purely Primitives comes along and blows my design out of the water!!!!


The amazing thing is, the designer doesn't seem to know what he has stumbled upon!


Bessler Rad 2 YouTube - YouTube


Epicyclic springs to mind.

As Jim Murray says, Nikola Tesla wrote about the moon being epicyclic.


That's what I love about working together as a team.

Collective brain power!


I'm struggling to understand much of the German.

I was trying to work out if he was talking about it being an off balance wheel or not.

It's strange that he has mounted it to the table and is messing around with magnets if he is though.


Shouldn't be too hard to design so that the arms can go past the centre of the spindle too, as long as they don't collide.

This seems a perfect way to keep the arms horizontal with strength.


The best thing about this design is, no one way bearings, no cam followers. Only the friction of the chain, but that cannot be much if it is putting the arms in the position to deliver maximum torque to the main shaft!

Looks like it's saved me from spending on the other design, which I am grateful for.

I'm certain it would have worked, but not as well as this design.

This could also have ganged arms to increase the frequency and torque curve.

Guess it's back to the drawing board again!


What does anyone else think?


Best regards,

Paul