Big Troubles Brewing For The Theoretical Physics Smart-Set!!!

[primemignonite]

Grimer (Frank):

This newest of yours is truly stimulating of thought.

(Matters appear to be progressing nicely.)

AtB(s)!

James

[Grimer]

Inspired by Bessler's love of biblical quotations (and last Sunday's gospel) I see that the action of the above mechanism can be viewed as a particular case of the Cockle and the Wheat parable.

Releasing the red weight is symbolic of the harvest time. The clockwise angular momentum represents the wheat which is gathered into barns. The widdershins angular momentum represents the cockle which is sent off to the furnace.

This system is kind of universal really. Some of the stuff we eat is turned into energy and waste goes to the privy.

[Tarsier79]

Thanks Dax

Im pretty sure though, that Aussies don't require an apology, because generally they are too busy getting drunk and slacking off, and they really couldn't care less what people say about them, unless they are standing in front of them in a bar. Even then, you would have to insult our cricket or footy team to get a rise out of most.

(ADD: you might even fool some of them into wondering why they don't fall off the bottom of the earth, and have them grabbing on to the nearest piece of furniture. Perhaps NGW doesn't explain why that doesn't happen. I don't have time to explain, so I'll let you do some research on that "tricky" one, Cloud.

Grimer,

Although I reading your words I sometimes can't remember if I'm reading a physics related thread or Alice in Wonderland, What you have described seems the perfect mechanism to test the momentumists theory. A pat on the back for the good work. The only problem, is they would believe it runs backwards to what you have described....

the 3 locked balls move counter clockwise, and the single ball falls and impacts. The "perfect transfer of momentum" occurs, and the lighter weight flies up and locks into place, the whole mechanism balanced and moving CCW.

Pity no one has actually seen any evidence of that particular pet theory(energy gain through transfer of momentum) actually working, even though many have been wooed by the siren.

[nicbordeaux]

The reason nobody has seen an actual energy creation is because there isn't one. What you get is a massive acceleration of the smaller object when the momentum or whatever is transferred to the small object from the large, and it's easy to get confused about speed and actual energy. Regarding the wheel trebuchets and tethered balls experiments (ouch) , I am now satisfied that these devices, although they don't look like 'em, are actually double pendulums.

[Grimer]

Having in the last post of mine gone from six weights to four I have considered whether the number of weights could be reduced even further without losing the concept of differential angular momentum.

The minimum number of weights as wheel can have is one. In this case it becomes what I have previously named a 360° pendulum as shown below.



Now this device has several distinct advantages over a more complex wheel.

The reset condition is very clear. The pendulum has to go over the top, cf. the Kiiking swing.

A well made pendulum has what one might term a very high coefficient of restitution. In other words, when allowed to fall from an angle of a fraction of a degree it will rise to an angle within a few degrees of 360°. This means that only a little extra energy is need to get it to its reset position a fraction of a degree past top-dead-centre.

Last but not least it is relatively simple to build.

The following diagram shows my suggestion for a device which may be successful as a demonstration of principle.



The pendulum has two centres of rotation. The black centre of the brown hub, which may be thought of as the shoulder joint, and the offset green centre which may be thought of as an elbow joint.

For normal shoulder centred rotation the pendulum arm is straight as shown by the dotted lines.

To induce eccentric elbow centred rotation the hub is suddenly arrested and the pendulum continues to rotate about the green centre as shown. At some point of the reduced curvature path the hub is released and the pendulum is allowed to straighten up.

The hub is stopped by connection to the ground in some way, an effectively infinite source of inertia. This means that the stopped duration only involves Force times Time (Jerk, 3rd derivative energy), not Force times Distance (Work, 2nd derivative energy). In the limit no Work energy is needed for stopping the hub in this manner.

Thus we are achieving the same decrease in path curvature (increase in angular momentum as would be achieved by drawing the green joint in towards the centre.

But drawing the green joint towards the centre involves Force times Distance. In other words it involves work being done on the system. Jerk is a totally independent source of energy which does not involve work.

By applying jerk on one side and allowing recovery on the other one is inducing gravity to act asymmetrically as in the four weights example.

I am not sure at which o'clock it is best to apply Jerk to the system. I have illustrated the action at 9 and 3 but thinking further about it I suppose the best point might be where the speed of the pendulum is high.

[cloud camper]

Hi Frank - I really like the way you're headed with the 138 style jerk like impacts (or is it the impact like jerks?) but I can't help myself sounding like a pompous jerk myself and note that you're not following JB's clues.

So please forgive me but JB said to use pairs of pairs of weights. Why would he say that if he didn't mean it?

Just this statement alone basically says that a four weight configuration (two pairs of pairs) is the minimum possible.

How could we use pairs of weights here to eliminate any loss of vertical PE AND eliminate the work required to extend a weight or weights in a rotating environment?

OK, I'm tired of being a curmudgeon and am returning to my usual porno channels!

[jim_mich]

So please forgive me but JB said to use pairs of pairs of weights. Why would he say that if he didn't mean it?

Just this statement alone basically says that a four weight configuration (two pairs of pairs) is the minimum possible.

Not quite. Bessler said "Now there are two and two things." Most don't notice the word now at the beginning of Bessler's statement. Bessler also said as one weight moved out another weight moved in. Thus, the first one directional wheels were one and one things, i.e., just one pair. It takes two and two, i.e., two pairs of weights to balance a wheel The later wheels now had two and two. They were balanced when stationary and I'm quite sure remained balanced when rotating. Bessler said the weights of his wheels gained force from their motions. Gravity cannot rotate a balanced wheel. Which is why it needed to be push started.

[Jon J Hutton]

So do you think that the 2 different wheels ran on the same principal?
Or did he find 2 different ways to perpetual motion.
JJH

[jim_mich]

I believe both wheel styles gained force from the same principle. The movement of each weight pair was the same with all wheels. The difference was the one-way wheels used the force gained by the motions of a pair of weights to lift one weight up while the other weight turned the wheel as it fell, then they swap roles and the first weight falls as the second weight is lifted upward by the force gained from the motions of the weight pair. There were any number of such independently functioning mechanisms in the wheel.

The two-way wheels used the same two weight mechanism, but doubled it up such that there were now two and two. This made the wheel always balanced so that it could rotate rotate backward without causing problems. When rotated backward the weights lost force and quit their motions on the wheel. The force gained from the motions of the weights was used to rotate the wheel by the impact of the weights against the wheel. The banging noise was heard on the two-way wheels, but no banging was ever mentioned with the one-way wheels.

Just my opinions.

[cloud camper]

They were balanced when stationary and I'm quite sure remained balanced when rotating. Bessler said the weights of his wheels gained force from their motions. Gravity cannot rotate a balanced wheel. Which is why it needed to be push started.

Apparently you have not considered the possibility that the wheel could be balanced at certain positions and unbalanced at others.

This would be identical behavior to the child's playground swing. When the child is straight up and down the system is balanced. Then when the swing is at the extremities, the system is unbalanced. The system then oscillates between the balanced and unbalanced nodes.

My four weight simulation solution behaves in exactly this manner. One of the weights is always extending to the rim while the other is retracting just as you say. But the other two are doing something else. The two weights simultaneously extending and retracting compare exactly to the child's legs extending and retracting, pumping the wheel instead of the swing.

At the balanced nodes a small push start is required. At the unbalanced nodes, the system will self start, again just like the playground swing.

The peacock's tail effect then occurs halfway between the balanced and unbalanced nodes and appears four times per wheel revolution.

The child's playground swing then becomes a proper subset mathematically speaking of the four weight rotary solution. I see no way to produce the effect with just two weights so we will have to agree to disagree on that point!

I would actually consider the child's playground swing to be the two weight solution as the child's body acts as one weight and the legs as the other.

[Grimer]

Hi Frank - I really like the way you're headed with the 138 style jerk like impacts (or is it the impact like jerks?) but I can't help myself sounding like a pompous jerk myself and note that you're not following JB's clues.

So please forgive me but JB said to use pairs of pairs of weights. Why would he say that if he didn't mean it?

Just this statement alone basically says that a four weight configuration (two pairs of pairs) is the minimum possible.

How could we use pairs of weights here to eliminate any loss of vertical PE AND eliminate the work required to extend a weight or weights in a rotating environment?



OK, I'm tired of being a curmudgeon and am returning to my usual porno channels!

What I have always taken from Bessler's stuff is that continuous generation of energy from gravity is possible. He discovered one of those ways but there is more than one way of skinning a cat.

Edit. And if you think about it there are two weights involved in the 360° pendulum. The weight of the bob and the weight of the earth.

Edit. There should in fact be three inertias corresponding to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd derivatives. That had me worried for a bit as I couldn't see where the third derivative was.

Then I realised, it is the axle which is of course earth grounded.

So we have the motion of the bob (first derivative).
This motion induced to acceleration of the bob towards the axle (second derivative).

And the acceleration changed by shortening the pendulum (third derivative).

We have the rock, scissors and paper we need for a continuous cycle.

[ovyyus]

The banging noise was heard on the two-way wheels, but no banging was ever mentioned with the one-way wheels.

...Upon the cord being released, the machine began to rotate with great force and noise, maintaining its speed without increasing or decreasing it for some considerable time... (one-way Draschwitz wheel)

...At every turn of the wheel can be heard the sound of about eight weights, which fall gently on the side towards which the wheel turns... (two-way Kassel wheel)

[jim_mich]

We seem to have a contradiction here...

He was not disheartened though, he "soon found all I was looking for at a place called Draschwitz. Here I constructed a five Ell high wheel, and anyone who wished to could come and see it, revolving between two narrow beams. The bolts which regulated the motion were screwed into and out of the axle by many people, for I allowed my friends to operate it. When the facts became known, many of the newspapers ran articles, and soon I was getting visits from Royalty, Nobility and Academics".

As before the house rapidly began to fill, "bursting with spectators, some foolish, some cunning". Orffyreus found that he had more than his share of those whose sole motivations were grudges born of hatred and envy. While all this was going on he continued to treat the sick successfully, and this too caused comment. Some suggested that the wheel contained a dog or a cat, because of the scratching noise which came from within. But at the top of Orffyreus' list of dislikes were those who alleged that he was a wizard, a hangman's apprentice or a follower of Dr. Faust - perhaps he had imprisoned a genie in the wheel - and worst of all, since he was having so much success with the sick, he must have signed a pact with Death himself.

'Having made an appointment with the inventor, we approached the machine and noticed that it was secured by a cord to the rim of the wheel. Upon the cord being released, the machine began to rotate with great force and noise, maintaining its speed with out increasing or decreasing it for some considerable time.

My question concerning this quote is: Was it both a great force and a great noise? Does the great adjective apply to both force and noise?

XXIX (b) The clattering in my machine is (says Wagner) just for appearance's sake. Herr Wagner says that my machine does not, under any circumstances, derive its motive force from the noisy weights. In other words, he declares that the mechanism that causes all the clattering (which was commented on earlier and which was noted by so many people) is not, in fact, the thing which causes the rotation of my Wheel.

The clattering noise you refer to is, I assure you, a phenomenon caused directly by the real motive power of the machine, and nothing else. You also wish me to inform you why the Draschwitz machine did not create a similar noise; well, I'll tell you. The two machines can easily be contrasted, as they worked on quite different principles. The former (Draschwitz) one turned in only one direction, but the latter (Merseburg ) one turned, as everyone could see, both ways. The former was provided with felt coverings, but the latter was as bare as a bald head. I have many other machines of various types - some, for instance, with weights, others without. Your questions are extremely irritating. Why don't you get your wheel moving? Till then, shut up.

Bessler say quite clearly that the earlier wheels were more quite than the later wheels.

[ovyyus]

My question concerning this quote is: Was it both a great force and a great noise?

the quote reads

"the machine began to rotate with great force and noise"

not

"the machine began to rotate with great force and noise"

Bessler says quite clearly that the earlier wheels were more quiet than the later wheels.

Bessler says quite clearly that his earlier wheels would have been just as noisy as his later wheels had he not used felt coverings to make them quiet.

[Grimer]

I have now devised and carried out an experiment which proves the point of principle, i.e. that the asymmetric action of Jerk (3rd derivative of position with respect to time) can harness Newtonian gravitational energy.

The above diagram is pretty self explanatory for anyone who has been following my line of thought on this subject.

Galileo obviously missed it - but given the apparatus available to him and the primitive nature of dynamics theory at the time, that is hardly surprising.