Yep i see that now, however it's another of these intrinsically unstable systems, and no matter how short i make the rods (thus causing the weights to converge towards one corner, minimising PE) they still oscillate - and for some reason when high air resistance is enabled this noise gets rectified into slow but steady motion... even if its infinitesimally small PE, the thing still turns until it runs out of memory..
But its obviously not useful. What i really want to crack is this 4x gain, but i'm clearly not on the right path for now..
I've been thinking about this a lot lately.. In AP Bessler strongly intimates that the trick is non-mechanical, and this has been really bugging me. I know his definition of what constitutes 'mechanical' probably differs from the modern usage, encompassing fluids and whatnot, but, paraphrasing, one pound can lift more than one pound, Wagner says no mechanical arrangement has been found fit for the task - he's right, and so's Bessler.. can anyone see why?
Fucti fino...
Maybe he's differentiating between something the weights do, perhaps during their flight, as opposed to something that's done to them...? Ie. in a passive / active type analogy...
Dunno. But if it's any small consolation (nanometers, actually), here's a really really spinny thing (the spinniest ever, no less):
The rotation rate is so fast that the angular acceleration at the sphere surface is 1 billion times that of gravity on the Earth surface – it's amazing that the centrifugal forces do not cause the sphere to disintegrate!"
MrVibrating wrote:Wagner says no mechanical arrangement has been found fit for the task - he's right, and so's Bessler.. can anyone see why?
And Bessler more than indicate in his answer, that his wheel is not driven by mechanical power but by a "proper method of mechanical application".
See the difference...?
EDIT: AP XX (b) "Wagner excels himself at this point, and describes in detail sources of mechanical power - human muscle-power, oxen, water, wind, fire, springs, and especially, weights."
regards
ruggero ;-)
Contradictions do not exist.
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -
MrVibrating wrote: the thing still turns until it runs out of memory..
There is a trick with WM2D where, when it runs out os memory, you tell it to start running again from its current condition. It will then run another 32K steps and again hit its limit. You can then do this again and again. But each time you loose the memory of the previous 32K steps. And unless you save the assembly before running it, you loose the original starting conditions.
MrVibrating wrote: In AP Bessler strongly intimates that the trick is non-mechanical, and this has been really bugging me.
I do not think Bessler ever intimates non-mechanical.
MrVibrating wrote:Wagner says no mechanical arrangement has been found fit for the task - he's right, and so's Bessler.. can anyone see why?
This discussion between Wagner and Bessler was not about mechanical versus non-mechanical. It was about weight lifting weight. Wagner said no mechanical arrangement for the task (of causing a lighter weight to lift a heavier weight) has ever been found. And then Bessler agrees with Wagner. Bessler asks, "Can anyone see why?" Wagner got hung up on the idea that Bessler's wheel was a gravity wheel rotated by rising and falling weights. Everyone knew Bessler's wheel contained weights. Bessler even mentions the fact that he must make the wheel parts out of something.
The problem is with the word 'weight'. Most people, even in Bessler's time, when they hear mention of weights rotating a wheel, immediately think of an OOB wheel rotated by gravity. If the wheel was rotated by the motions (inertia and momentum) of the weights rather than OOB, then both Wagner and Bessler would be right. The wheel would be rotated by a mechanical means, but not by any mechanical means involving gravity acting on rising and falling weights.
But don't believe me. Go back and read again what Wagner wrote and what Bessler wrote. Read the paragraphs leading up to and following their discussions, so that you understand the full context.
See if my suggestion makes sense. Then make up you own mind, since there are members here that think I'm a fool and should not be posting anything on the forum.
@ruggerodk - yes, i do see your point that he ends that paragraph extolling a "proper method of mechanical application", which does seem to confirm the mechanical nature of the exploit.
However my doubts arise because while he does indeed begin by referencing Wagner's list of mechanical power sources, he then goes on to quote Wagner as claiming "no one has ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required task" - and this latter statement seems to be at odds with the discussion on power sources.
The reason being, that raising 4lbs with 1lb or whatever is trivial if there's a conventional energy source included, such as springs or whatever. Rather, it seems implicit then that Wagner was specifically stating that no-one had previously discovered mechanical OU, and Bessler is retorting that OU is indeed possible, but that it's somehow not 'mechanical' in nature.
Thus i conclude that he's coyly suggesting some 'non-mechanical' aspect, in some historical sense at least, to his "proper method of mechanical application".
So for instance, perhaps the statement would be intended to preclude basic forms of direct leverage, overbalancing etc. etc.
I don't know... it's just one of a number of apparently impossible-to-reconcile paradoxes here, i guess... like his descriptions of the weight locations and motions.
@jim
Largely agree with your views here, although i think there's a distinction to be made between overbalancing as a prime mover (where the OB is the exploit and source of the asymmetry), versus OB as a means of using energy gained elsewhere - in this latter sense, it is merely a form of transmission, of converting some other source of excess force into useful torque. Its corollary would be what i call 'direct-drive' transmission; gears, chains or perhaps the scissorjack principle i was playing with earlier in this thread, for example.
I also think his exploit used inertial as well as gravitational forces - i still stand by my description of their combination in a vertically-rotating frame constituting a potential energy gradient, however thusfar it's a freely alternating net force with no viable 'free' displacements available - any close-loop disunity would seem to require motions in an additional plane, and there doesn't seem to be any viable paths in the Z-plane - the most obvious (and only other available) extra dimension. In short, all reciprocal displacements are made equal and opposite by spatial symmetries.
I'm growing increasingly doubtful that a 2D solution's possible. I've a few ideas for 'exploding' 3D structures into 2D for sim purposes, but haven't actually tried it yet..
I have been playing with CF vs G exchanges, but so far they all seem to come unstuck once upside-down. You need to let go of a weight to thus reset an armature, leaving the question of how to re-lift a weight back onto a reset lever / jack or whatever...
Hence why i'm trying to focus on the 4:1 gain principle. Like the man said, without it all else will come to naught.
My latest hunch (for this evening, anyway) is some kind of chain-reaction. In other words, a series reaction, rather than parallel (as by leverage, say). In such a scenario, an input FxD has an equal output FxD, except it then has three more, ricocheting off in the z-plane in a kind of rotation-fueled avalanche type situation, possibly. In a nutshell, an arrangement with different effective PE's in the X/Y vs Z planes.
And if that sounds like gobbledygook, it almost certainly is. I'll probably realise it tomorrow, too. Totally winging it, i have nothing.. but unknown reserves of hair-brained desperation, and a few hours each night...
jim_mich wrote:The wheel would be rotated by a mechanical means, but not by any mechanical means involving gravity acting on rising and falling weights.
By all means, Jim...I too believe the power source was not 'the weight of the weights' method (gravity OOB); a typical mechanical lever arrangement.
The real 'motive power' came from a secret type of excess impetus; from motion of the weights.
These weights, Bessler says, are the essential parts and constitute perpetuum mobile itself.
So what movement should we look for, if not applied by leverage?
CF is a good guess.
ruggero ;-)
Contradictions do not exist.
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -
See if my suggestion makes sense. Then make up you own mind, since there are members here that think I'm a fool and should not be posting anything on the forum.
Really Jim, come on belly up to the bar. What do you have some super eggshell ego? Do we have to hear your ego has been slighted on every thread? You have numerous times insinuated I am an idiot for my work on Phi and other codes; do you hear me whine all over the forum? You have no problem insulting others, but nobody can insult the intelligence of the great mind of Jim Randall, top one percent IQ of the human race that ever lived. Give me a break already; everybody is tired of it. Bend over and reach down and pull your big old hairy grey balls down 3 or 4 inches.
I suggest people go back and read Bessler's words, looking at them from the different perspective of the wheel being a motion wheel instead of a gravity wheel, and instead of doing some reading and then returning so as to enter into an intelligent discussion of Bessler's writings, daxwc stoops to vulgarity, person attacks, and throws vulgar insults at me. (Which is against the terms of use of this forum) It's like he thinks I'm desecrating a holy sanctuary by suggesting that Bessler's wheel was not turned by gravity.
Then his buddy cloud camper chimes in with taunts.
Are you guys incapable of intelligent discussions?
what causes motion? force?
what causes force? energy transformation?
can any form of energy transform the same energy over and over in a feedback loop in a closed system - one that isn't connected either mechanically or thermodynamically to its environment for energy conversion - without losing any of the original energy to its environment? can this energy conversion do outside work at the same time?
no, it can't. energy can't be transformed at 100% efficiency, under normal circumstances.
a mass in circular motion has its original amount of kinetic energy given by the original energy transformation. some form of energy had to transform from one form to another to set the mass in circular, kinetic motion. mass has only potential energy available to transform to kinetic energy. it doesn't begin with circular, kinetic energy and transform that to potential energy.
So your final answer is that PM is impossible because a PM wheel based on moving weights is impossible and because it's well known that a PM wheel based on gravity is impossible. What other choices are there for rotating Bessler's wheel? There was not enough room inside Bessler's wheel to store enough energy to run for the six weeks demonstration. How do you explain it running that long?
Do you think gravity turned Bessler's wheel? Or do you think Bessler was a fraud?
Obviously the wheel was not outside where the wind blows, so you must think the same as Leibniz?
Leibniz's reply on the 21st February, 1714 included the following remarks,
'I cannot believe that someone has invented perpetual motion.
In my opinion, it is contrary to nature's laws. I suspect that what you saw in
the wheel was the action of highly compressed air. However it would need to
be re-compressed after a short time.'
