IMO the reason we are not finding the answer can be found in the MT drawings and the 23 depictions I supplied in the link above.
We are all with tunnel vision and keep pushing the wheel concept. This is where I feel we are burying ourselves.
Bessler said is it a wheel for it has no rim. It spreads like a peacocks tail ETC. It will run but very slowly with just one lever.
Hide it in a drum that makes it look like a wheel as all must rotate with the axle. But is it the wheel that makes the machine, I think not.
Ralph
RiddleMeThis
Moderator: scott
-
primemignonite
- Devotee
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 8:19 am
re: RiddleMeThis
Hi Ralph,
I checked out the pages you provided the link to, and it is an impressive assortment of failures, alright. But what I like MOST about it, is the introduction. Full of insights and colorful expressions, as well as new/old angles.
That demonstrator of Desaguliers' is a bit confusing. Actual models must exist. I would like to see what the nasty rascal proved by it's means. Probably nothing. |:)
As to THE OVER BALANCE THING: Mother Nature just seems to say "no" to the lovely idea every time. I have drawn out and analyzed numerous iterations of the kind, and they may display over balance alright, BUT, the time in-effect lessens for the dominating weight's position, and this is constantly proportionally less to the lesser one's, which is always more in the same way. Unless there is a dynamical type dodge to exploit, one which changes this relationship somehow - by means of a possibly now unknown phenomenon? - then the over-balancing approaches would appear to be hopeless ones, sadly. It is built into reality and is, I am afraid, INSUPERABLE.
I went to your first posts and reviewed the pendulum subject and got sent over to the Evert pages. There could be something there, alright. It is a weird thing, what Bessler drew with all that swinging to and fro with the neat reciprocal motions front and back. What a little devil he was, teasing us the way he does!
What COULD that reference mean to "the peacocks tail"; possibly the play of light as seen upon the interior weights while in motion and uncovered ? Why not? Brass would be a nice display sure.
Best,
James (CIC, BesslerWheel)
I checked out the pages you provided the link to, and it is an impressive assortment of failures, alright. But what I like MOST about it, is the introduction. Full of insights and colorful expressions, as well as new/old angles.
That demonstrator of Desaguliers' is a bit confusing. Actual models must exist. I would like to see what the nasty rascal proved by it's means. Probably nothing. |:)
As to THE OVER BALANCE THING: Mother Nature just seems to say "no" to the lovely idea every time. I have drawn out and analyzed numerous iterations of the kind, and they may display over balance alright, BUT, the time in-effect lessens for the dominating weight's position, and this is constantly proportionally less to the lesser one's, which is always more in the same way. Unless there is a dynamical type dodge to exploit, one which changes this relationship somehow - by means of a possibly now unknown phenomenon? - then the over-balancing approaches would appear to be hopeless ones, sadly. It is built into reality and is, I am afraid, INSUPERABLE.
I went to your first posts and reviewed the pendulum subject and got sent over to the Evert pages. There could be something there, alright. It is a weird thing, what Bessler drew with all that swinging to and fro with the neat reciprocal motions front and back. What a little devil he was, teasing us the way he does!
What COULD that reference mean to "the peacocks tail"; possibly the play of light as seen upon the interior weights while in motion and uncovered ? Why not? Brass would be a nice display sure.
Best,
James (CIC, BesslerWheel)