The Mechanical Engine

[CloudSeeder]

With the arm up in the air like that and locked til the wheel brought it to say between 1 o'clock and 2 o'clock and THEN drop, I believe what this would do would

#1 give the device the pendulum advantage Dr. Lindemann has always favored as the "first strike"

plus

#2 as the angle of the squared post continues to lean over, the entire arm chain and pendulum would drop as one over to the right slamming the wheel forward, a second hit.

The second hit we all knew needed to happen. One two punch.

I'll take column 5 for 1000 Art.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

this is the diagram

[Michael John Nunnerley]

gravity engine

[Michael John Nunnerley]

The disc size should be 1mtr. dia minimum. The shaft is connected to the disc but does not pass through or touch the slider bars, it extends out the back of the disc and passes through a bearing ready for usable energy pick up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Michael John Nunnerley]

The position of the inner and outer cams is critical, as you will see there is a type of pendulum effect in two planes as the sliders move from one side to the other and then back again. The sliders have a ball race, they move very, very freely.

I SHOULD SAY OFF SET PENDULUM EFFECT

[CloudSeeder]

Building on #186 => http://www.energeticforum.com/50338-post186.html then, 3 pendulum units would be plenty, but you would need double the number of posts for them walking backwards to have somewhere to step backwards to... because the ones dropping back do so before the next one moves outta the way.

A fresh post has to move up first, giving the unit somewhere to go.

[Ted Ewert]

gravity engine

Hi Michael.
Interesting concept you have there. I appears it should work at first glance, but I don't think it will. The reason is that you essentially have two wheels, with two axis, that are connected together. You could have two gears rotating on two axles connected together via their teeth and you would have the same thing.
There needs to be a dynamic phase shift between centrifugal and centripetal forces during each cycle. These two phases of rotation have to be separated by time and space. This means one axis has to shift away from and back toward the other.
Look at the axis of your weights; it doesn't shift. This is why it can't work. Thousands of unbalanced wheels have been built using this same principal, and none of them work (I know because I've built a few myself ).
I don't mean to be discouraging, but this is the reason I've jumped on Peter's bandwagon. I believe a self powered wheel is possible, but only under Nature's very specific conditions.
I'm in the process of designing and building a wheel along the principals of Peter's design, so I'll be putting my money where my mouth is. You can all have a good laugh if I screw it up.

Cheers,

Ted

[CloudSeeder]

I won't laugh, and I'm thankful not too many people laugh when I go out on a long thin limb and make suggestions of possible ways to solve these issues... that may very well be nice theories and turn out to be just nice theories.

[woopy]

hello all

i began with Inquorate idea for a simplification of Peter Lindemann excellent version of Bessler wheel

than i tested it in WM 2d and in the simulation after some modifications it worked very well
but after having been encouraged by these simulations i decided to build the wheel

i made it with 5 and than 10 fulcrum(pendulum) and it didn't work

as i said in one if my previous post "i hoped that reality will not be to severe against us but in fact reality has not to be severe ,it is simply reality

and believe me when you turn with your hands on your bench the wheel with 10 heavy pendulums ,you get at once the reality. You feel the possiibility or not in some seconds and you deeply think that computer are big liers

don't worry i am very confident that i made all the possible mistakes in the use of WM2d soft, as i have no experience with this soft

just for info i make all my previous flight test of my ultralights with computer simulation and i can get very good accuracy between sim and reality and believe me i fly every day with the computer engineered flying machines and this is full reality

but i use my flight sim since more than 6 years and i know all the small tricks to get the best usefull results

now back to Beslaurentius code

i have made further test this evening

and i made comparison between free fall of the fulcrum without ratcheting the back swing

and the same swing with the back swing on the ratchet

the result is that the ratcheting backswing seems to offer more power and i can get almost 1/2 turn on one single swing

once more feel free and i encourage you to build the system it does not take more time than learning to use a soft and make lot of expectation and at the end you will have anyway to confirm the soft calculation by building a proto to harness the Reality

all the best and courage

Laurent

[CloudSeeder]

Well, if we can defy gravity then we can harness it and use it. I personally think defying it should have come 2nd... and well, it did. Bessler did it 200 years before Wilbur & Orville!

[Ted Ewert]

hello all

i began with Inquorate idea for a simplification of Peter Lindemann excellent version of Bessler wheel

than i tested it in WM 2d and in the simulation after some modifications it worked very well
but after having been encouraged by these simulations i decided to build the wheel

i made it with 5 and than 10 fulcrum(pendulum) and it didn't work

as i said in one if my previous post "i hoped that reality will not be to severe against us but in fact reality has not to be severe ,it is simply reality

and believe me when you turn with your hands on your bench the wheel with 10 heavy pendulums ,you get at once the reality. You feel the possiibility or not in some seconds and you deeply think that computer are big liers

don't worry i am very confident that i made all the possible mistakes in the use of WM2d soft, as i have no experience with this soft

just for info i make all my previous flight test of my ultralights with computer simulation and i can get very good accuracy between sim and reality and believe me i fly every day with the computer engineered flying machines and this is full reality

but i use my flight sim since more than 6 years and i know all the small tricks to get the best usefull results

now back to Beslaurentius code

i have made further test this evening

and i made comparison between free fall of the fulcrum without ratcheting the back swing

and the same swing with the back swing on the ratchet

the result is that the ratcheting backswing seems to offer more power and i can get almost 1/2 turn on one single swing

once more feel free and i encourage you to build the system it does not take more time than learning to use a soft and make lot of expectation and at the end you will have anyway to confirm the soft calculation by building a proto to harness the Reality

all the best and courage

Laurent

Hi Laurent,
Someday computer sims may be able to help design these wheels, but not yet. Nobody knows enough about the principals behind a working model to write the software.
I liked what you said about rotating the wheel with your hand and feeling the possibilities. You can get a lot of information from a machine just by moving it around and feeling the forces and stresses.
We'll figure this out.

Ted

[Inquorate]

Waiting for payday...

Still waiting for payday to get a big piece of plywood and a couple of bolts etc.. Bit crestfallen about ppls findings from attempts so far but also encouraged by simple experiments with a Crossbeam and two pendulums, one swinging..

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Hi Michael.
Interesting concept you have there. I appears it should work at first glance, but I don't think it will. The reason is that you essentially have two wheels, with two axis, that are connected together. You could have two gears rotating on two axles connected together via their teeth and you would have the same thing.
There needs to be a dynamic phase shift between centrifugal and centripetal forces during each cycle. These two phases of rotation have to be separated by time and space. This means one axis has to shift away from and back toward the other.
Look at the axis of your weights; it doesn't shift. This is why it can't work. Thousands of unbalanced wheels have been built using this same principal, and none of them work (I know because I've built a few myself ).
I don't mean to be discouraging, but this is the reason I've jumped on Peter's bandwagon. I believe a self powered wheel is possible, but only under Nature's very specific conditions.
I'm in the process of designing and building a wheel along the principals of Peter's design, so I'll be putting my money where my mouth is. You can all have a good laugh if I screw it up.

Cheers,

Ted

Thanks for your comments Ted, I do not know if it would work either but I do not think I explained the design very well and so may be you did not understand the princple.

The center axis of the weights does infact move toward the center axis of the disc, in fact they are continually changing. Centripetal force and centrafugal force are only at equilibrium at the 12/6 position, at all oyher times it is moving back and forth around the center axis of the large disc.

The internal and external cams are totally independant and are only in contact when the cam wheels are touching, " the cams do not move " The 12/6 position are the only sticking point " the gate " which will stop this from working.

I am looking at some form of energy at the gate sufficient to move the weights 5 degrees to overcome this dead point, may be a pendulum which is triggered at the 9/3 movement from left to right and use this energy to push past the gate

Well when I have an idea I will put it into the design and post it again or if anyone has an idea let me know

Michael

IF AT FIRST YOU DīNOT SUCCEED, TRY TRY AGAIN

[CloudSeeder]

Whew! Now I know what my ideas must sound like to everybody else! It's so, so clear to the person WRITING IT. I have trouble converting 2-d static pictures into motion also. Without having a pipe tap to insert into the other person's brain I can get really Lost in Translation, and I don't even get the blond. Darn that Bill Murray.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Whew! Now I know what my ideas must sound like to everybody else! It's so, so clear to the person WRITING IT. I have trouble converting 2-d static pictures into motion also. Without having a pipe tap to insert into the other person's brain I can get really Lost in Translation, and I don't even get the blond. Darn that Bill Murray.

Your right it is a problem, I could go into scientific terms, which is my job, but I think it will make things worse

Michael