|
Darren Houle Building Bessler's Wheel (Part III) -- Good News & Bad News
(click here for part I | part II) Composed by Darren Houle for GreaterThings.com Free Energy Directory Part IIIJune 2, 2003 From: "Darren Houle" <lokka_@hotmail.com> Since it has been so long since the last post I'll include a short recap just to get everyone back up to speed... and hopefully clear up some confusion a few people have voiced... Recap About a year and a half ago I penned a design for a purely mechanical over-balanced wheel that looked totally different than anything else I'd seen anywhere and appeared, as they all do, to be very promising. I subsequently spent about a year doing serious calculations on this design, and verifying it on paper as much as humanly possible. On paper (actually in Excel) it very definitely produced more positive torque every 45 degrees than negative torque. This was the "foundation" design and so I called it Design I. Design I employed a simple principle for attaining over-unity. For simplicity sake I'll refer to this as the OverUnity Principle (OUP). The OUP can be achieved by arranging one of Newton's three laws of motion in a very specific mechanical configuration and was, I believe, what Bessler spoke of in his writings. Although my original Design I theoretically showed overunity as Bessler's wheels did, it was moderately complicated, uni-directional, and in my opinion not exactly the same as Bessler's design. It would probably turn much slower than his uni-directional wheel, about 10RPM, and did not have all the same characteristics, did not precisely fit all the "clues." I believe it did share the same OUP with Bessler's wheel (in my opinion this OUP is the only way to allow gravity to turn a wheel) but the mechanics are, I believe, quite different than his. Most likely mine is much more clunky... much less efficient. So, since I felt the OUP was valid, but Design I was not really Bessler's, I felt like I needed to do two things; First, employ the OUP in a new configuration that would allow the wheel to be bi-directional and fit more of Bessler's clues, and second, announce a completion date to everyone so that I would be more likely to get things done. I came up with Design II, making sure that it employed the OUP as Design I did, and made an announcement roughly at the same time. In the following weeks I switched from Excel to the demo version of Working Model 2D simulation software and have been working diligently to get a sim finished for Design II. Which brings us to today... and there's good news and bad news... First, The Bad News Although Design II fit the Bessler "clues" perfectly, I didn't employ the OUP properly within the design so... it balanced. A form of Design II may possibly work but the Design II that I came up with, the one I finished a sim for, only balances. Insert rousing applause from the skeptics here :-) Also, for everyone who thought my Design II was not Bessler's design... you were probably right. Doesn't matter if it fit the clues if the thing doesn't exhibit OU, right? So as I said, some modified form of Design II, employing the OUP *properly*, may be Bessler's design, but my current Design II is not going to work. One more for the scrap heap. But, There's Also Good News Since I have proven in a software sim that Design II was not going to work as-is I also began to have doubts about my original Design I and the foundation OverUnity Principle itself. At first I thought that I had employed the OUP into Design II properly and so the OUP must be faulty, and after all, I had done a lot of calculations on Design I but they were all fairly static in Excel, I could have done something wrong... so... I built a software sim for the original foundation Design I. This, some computer RAM issues, and life in general, are basically what took me the extra week of time to post this message. Good news... the Design I sim worked. It didn't just balance, it overbalanced. It was after seeing this I realized that the OverUnity Principle was correct, but I had incorporated that OUP into Design II improperly. What's Next? I know this won't be a popular statement but... please don't ask me for sim video or statistics or measurement details... I'm a week behind right now and I would rather get back on timeline than spend time making videos and sending out a bunch of emails right now. There's plenty of time for that later. And I promise that it will happen, but please be patient. Emails are great, I've enjoyed talking to everyone who has contacted me, but please don't ask for the design details quite yet. As of right now I plan to take the next three weeks (yes, I'll probably skip next week's installment on this series) to see if I can find a way to incorporate the OUP into a new, simpler design that better fits the Bessler clues. I may not be able to do it, but I most certainly know now that Bessler did accomplish what he claimed and that there must be a simpler design than my Design I... I just haven't found it yet. I won't spend anymore time than that on this new Design III because I've stalled enough over the last year and don't wish to stall anymore... but I do want to give a quick try. Simpler has got to be better. What this means is that unfortunately I may miss my final completion deadline of July 4th, but, if I do miss the completion date it will only be by a matter of weeks. I do *not* plan to delay the release any more than that. Now, if you feel all of this is enough evidence to throw me on the nutcase heap along with all the other false claims then I certainly understand, but be warned, I have seen the Design I sim work and *know* it's possible... so I'm not backpedaling... and won't stop until this gets finished. Stay tuned. Conclusion Back to the drawing board to see if I can find a simpler way to employ the OUP into a rotary configuration. I want something simpler that fits the clues better. I give myself three weeks (or less) and after that time if I still haven't come up with anything I will scrap all other designs and move forward with Design I, something I know works. Until then, thanks for all your kind comments, and keep your nose to the grindstone. Darren See also
Page posted by SDA, June 6, 2003. |
|
|
