Toad Elevating Moment

[raj]

I am not as clever or physics savvy as you lot, but kindly allow me to make the following contribution to the ongoing discussion here:

Imagine a small boy, siiting well secured on an swing and he cannot swing by himself.

Granddad has to push or pull the seat of the swing, with the boy sitting securely, as high as his shoulder and let go.

The swing with the boy sitting, swings downwards fast ,and up on the other side, swing back down again and back up to almost grand dad's shoulder.

This time grand dad just gives a gentle pat to the boy's back, and hey, the swing swings away and back again.

The boy will continue to swing as long as grand dad will be there to give the gentle pat to this back on every return of the swing.

The gentle pat is meant to replenish the loss angular momentum, due the friction.

I firmly believe that this is the basis of a MOTION wheel.

There is no weight moving in and out and there is not torque gain or loss.

Maybe my thoughts are too naive.

Raj

[ovyyus]

if the wheel produced closer to 150 to 160 Watts, as I strongly believe it did...

Did Bessler operate his long duration test with a fully loaded wheel? Why would he risk more things breaking down and ruining his delicate reputation? My guess is his long duration test wheel was unloaded. If so, how much power is required to turn his unloaded wheel at the reported 26 RPM? Surely not more than 20 Watts to overcome windage and axle friction. I've allowed 40 Watts, just to be on the safe side.

It is feasible to replicate Bessler's long duration test without resorting to re-writing the physics books. We have an energy source and we have our imagination and creativity. All we need to do is figure out a clever way to harness a defined energy source.

Only a closed-minded person (or perhaps someone who actually knows better) would discount the idea out of hand because he can not see how it might be done. Ingenuity was Bessler's forte.

[raj]

I am beginning to get the gist of the futile ongoing discussion we are witnessing here

What we know is that Bessler's wheel was being independently tested by wise academics of his time.

The running wheel was locked securely in a room, to be open to see if it is still running. at a later date.

At the later date it was found that the wheel was still running.

All of you are arguing as to how the wheel was running and where did it get its energy from for its continuous running.

Some of you are saying that it was a genuine ppm.
Others are arguing that Bessler was a fraud, and had used some form of hidden energy supply to make his wheel run.

Now, let's assume that Bessler was a fraud and that he used whatever methods to supply energy to his wheel to run the duration of the test.

The most important question here, in my mind, is this:

Was Bessler told, before hand, the duration of how long his wheel running
will be tested?

If yes, Bessler could, very well, have made sure that his wheel is still running at the end of the specified time his test will end, by using any secret methods of supplying energy to his wheel.

On the other hand, if Bessler did not know how long the test of his running wheel would last, even if he was a fraud, he could not have worked out the amount of energy he would have to supply to his wheel to run for an undeterminate time period.

Am I talking nonsense?

Raj

[raj]

I just posted the above, after a beer drinking session...

Raj

[daxwc]

Bill:

Only a closed-minded person (or perhaps someone who actually knows better) would discount the idea out of hand because he can not see how it might be done. Ingenuity was Bessler's forte.

There is a 99 % chance the power source is not what we would call perpetual motion in todays definition. There is 1% chance that the energy is powered from nothing and only that high because of what seems watertight tests and demonstrations, but one really has to remember the Keely story and put it into perspective.

[MrVibrating]

...so I'll be back next Tuesday.

Lol missed a great opportunity to drop the "C U next Tuesday" bomb there, buti don't want to take sides in any personal quarrels...

I can't help but weigh in on the central argument tho, and i'm with Jim - i believe Bessler had a real symmetry break, that it depended upon CF rather than gravity alone, and perhaps obviating gravity completely; a CF-only exploit.

Again, though, this wouldn't preclude using over-balance against gravity as a means of producing torque. This distinction between OB-torque and OB-OU is an all-important one - i'm increasingly skeptical that it's possible to break gravitational symmetry, all else being equal.

As to the thermodynamics, a symmetry break is evidence of an unidentified energy source, not evidence of "free" energy, nor a failure of the conservation laws.

Please everyone try to follow this logic carefully:

- an "interaction" is a system in which we input some energy, in terms of force times displacement, against a force field (fundamental or fictional, in principle), and the field outputs a corresponding quantity of work back at us.

Most interactions are 'symmetrical' because the input and output FxD integrals sum to zero - they cancel out.

- an asymmetric interaction is when we (the operator) or Nature does more work than the other. The I/O work integrals don't cancel, having a non-zero sum.

So if i drop a weight when it's light, then re-lift it when it's heavy, i've done more work than the field. More specifically; i've moved more energy into the field than it has moved back out. The form of the energy loss has the standard energy term of FxD.

And ditto in a gain scenario. Hence, from the classical perspective, energy has been lost or gained. However we know that every step in the symmetry break is dependent upon conservation of energy - no "magic" happens at any given point - so the classical, mechanical view is by definition insufficient to characterise the system.

A system we expect to be thermodynamically closed, is, instead, thermodynamically open. The evidence of "free" or "destroyed" energy is but evidence of an outside source / sink.

The implication is that the forces are powered, and this is rightly voodoo from the classical perspective.

However its central to the quantum one.

The fundamental fields are the boson-spheres. All forces are mediated by carrier particle exchanges. These "elementary" bosons literally exchange energies between bodies they interact with, and the vacuum. The form of the energy is ambient angular momentum, traded in units of h-bar.

This isn't conjecture, its the standard model.

If i might allow us one small neologism here, the term "directional vacuum coupler" normally has a slightly different meaning, however it is literally a plain-english description of what an asymmetric force interaction actually does - which is sinking and sourcing energy to and from the vacuum potential.

And while contentious, this is not new science. What we're dealing with is non-dissipative non-thermodynamic losses, and their inverse.

The deeper implications of widespread asymmetries is of course of portentous gravitas with regards to cosmology and cosmogonies; it seems axiomatic to me at least, that it is not the energy of the universe that is constant, but rather its throughput, which may or may not be stable over various scales. It's an active, not passive system, and contrary to classical expectations the oft-maligned system encompassing a stationary fridge, a magnet and gravity is in fact consuming hefty amounts of energy at all times. A great deal of work is being performed in simply manifesting the forces. The quantum foam is a tumultuous broth, a heaving maelstrom of activity, and we inhabit a vast ocean of untapped energy all around us.

In the classical view, the universe came into existence with a finite amount of energy, and as entropy increases the amount of possible work remaining to be completed is diminishing - once everything's done, it will lapse into a state of 'heat death'. This "net thermodynamic energy" can be described as the mean deviation from the net sum of all FxD integrals of all matter in all fields, at any given point in time. It thus sums to zero, ultimately, and is always tending towards that point.


However the vacuum's activity will never end. This "zero point" energy doesn't go away. It's the same energy powering the forces, and just because all the classical work's been done doesn't mean there's no energy left in the system. In fact, there's probably millions of orders of magnitude more energy to the vacuum than there ever was in the thermodynamic realm.

For now, this reality of the relationship between quantum and classical is largely overlooked, the preserve of theoretical physicists and cosmologists, and cranks like me and Bearden et al... the "net thermodynamic energy" and "vacuum energy" remain unreconciled in the popular understanding, with the latter mostly ignored as relevant only to quantum theorists.

Practical realisation of OU will change this, and we'll come to view all systems as potentially open to vacuum exchange.

For now, though, consider that if we sink just 1J to or from the vacuum, then by definition, the thermodynamic energy of the universe is not constant! I already know how to do this electromagnetically, courtesy of Steorn (their famous "fast-in, slow-out" Sv interaction destroys classical energy by moving it into the vacuum). And it was that realisation that inspired me to redouble the search for a mechanical corollary.

And for now, i remain optimistic we'll find one....

[raj]

Too High-Flown!

Just call a spade, SPADE.

[MrVibrating]

So anyways, i was having a nice soak in the bath last night, when i had something of an epiphany...


I was considering the shape of the centrifugal force gradient....

And it's cone-shaped, isn't it? It's a cone, with a hole in the middle. The force gradient can be represented as extending outwards, whether up or down, towards infinite steepness - that is, the walls of the cone can extend to infinity, as does the acuteness of the force magnitude moving away from the axle.


A triviality, no doubt, but i keep my Kindle full of Bessler stuff handy at all times so grabbed it and had a quick leaf through MT, looking for cones. I was sure i'd seen a few.

So i ended up settling on MT119... and instantly i had a solution.

MT119 is MT41. They're both describing related concepts, or aspects of his design, in different ways.

Everyone will be familiar with MT41 - with something 'special' behind its horizontal scissorjacks.

But MT119 is so abstract as to seem surrealist - what is this metaphor of a snake yakking up into its own arse supposed to mean? Clearly there could be no sane expectation that the fluid motion would self-perpetuate.


However, when we view its cone feature as representative of the shape of the centrifugal force gradient, everything becomes clear:

MT119 is what i've been calling an one-down, n-up scissorjack (to minimise unnecessary neologisms lets just call it levered scissorjacks - where they're affixed asymmetrically across their length).

Specifically, MT119 is showing us the trajectories of the masses throughout the interaction.

For each revolution of the wheel, the shorter-extending mass moves slowly outwards, forming tight loops.

Conversely, the longer-extending mass forms wider loops.

Note well the axle at G.

I'm right, aren't i? :)

Because the creature is vomiting downwards into the center of the cone at the axle / axis, rather than sucking it up in the other direction, we thus are given the direction of the trajectories.

Similarly, there is a cone aspect to the winding width of the snake's upper and lower coiled sections - depicting the diminishing force towards the center of rotation.

Isn't this exciting!!?


There's a bonus too, though....

The image is indicating that the weights trade positions, and that there are faster/slower phases of extension and retraction during these substitution strokes.

However, as i noted yesterday, using scissorjacks this way comes up against spatial symmetry as the wheel rotates the mechanism upside-down - reversing our leverage.

This seems to be the fundamental 'sticky spot' in all attempts at a CF exploit - whatever we may gain through the lower 180° arc, we lose though the upper arc.

And this is where the horizontal scissorjacks of MT41 come into play... they circumvent that limitation entirely!

What this means for MT119 is that the snake's body only illustrates the weight's radial positions on the wheel. It does not necessarily follow that it also demands the weights be attached to the ends of the jack! Hence it doesn't necessarily imply that the jack is rotating with the weights..!

If instead the jack is oriented in the axial plane, then it is exempted from being subject to gravity-reversal symmetry, once per revolution; we can have many complete revolutions per jack cycle!

Again, it is not the jack itself that is important, so much as the power conversion factor - the gearing. This causes an asymmetric displacement - where a high displacement against CF is performing work in the form of lower displacement, also against CF.

For clarity; the input FD integral takes the form of CF over radial displacement, and so does the output..!

The axially-aligned lever circumvents gravitational influence, precisely because of the inherent inversion when rotated relative to its vector..!

In a nutshell... gravity gets in the way of the asymmetry... it is an obstacle, rather than a means, to our ends.

The exploit is an asymmetric inertial exchange.

The weights slide outwards upon radially-oriented poles, and they're affixed to the axle mechanism via chords.

Either they're fed out slowly, then quickly retracted, or vice-versa (i've yet to gain further clarity on the issue). Also i'm unsure as to how they "swap places" - although i suspect it is rather their fixtures to the axial mechanism that alternates, rather than the weights themselves crossing the axle, hence they only need to be radially-oriented linear sliders.

It seems reasonable to suppose, provisionally, that the chords are thus de-facto ripchords, converting linear CF work into torque, and back.




Using this same connection between the cone shape and that of the CF gradient, the meanings of other other cone-based images likewise come into relief..

The preceding sketch, MT118, shows a symmetrical CF workload.

Ditto 117 and 116.

The subsequent image, MT120, depicts a similar theme - it is a simple centrifugal pump; the coil rotates, and the water's inertia pumps it up to the top, and back down, out towards the perimeter.

I have a bundle of very similar scissorjack schemes already simmed, however it's clear now why the jacks need to be prevented from rotating in the radial plane, and why a 2D sim is poorly equipped for designing the requisite mechanisms...

I think it should be do-able though, with a little lateral thinking...

[MrVibrating]

Too High-Flown!

Just call a spade, SPADE.

It either is, or isn't a conservation violation. That's a simple enough distinction, but its implications are of absolutely pivotal importance to the possibility, or not, of a solution.

There can be no conservation violations, only apparent ones. In other words, there's open thermodynamic systems, and closed ones.

Apparently-closed-but-actually-open systems are purely a figment of incomplete comprehension.

If a system's energy isn't constant, it's not thermodynamically closed. Counter-intuitively, "over-unity" would work precisely because of conservation of energy, and not in spite of it!

[cloud camper]

I already know how to do this electromagnetically, courtesy of Steorn (their famous "fast-in, slow-out" Sv interaction destroys classical energy by moving it into the vacuum). And it was that realisation that inspired me to redouble the search for a mechanical corollary.

And for now, i remain optimistic we'll find one....

Thanks for the thought provoking discussion MV.

I have proposed the exact same mechanism in mechanics and it is the same as Bessler documented.

JB's statement "These weights are themselves the PM device, the essential constituent parts which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely -- so long as they keep away from the center of gravity" MT p. 20 is the exact embodiment of your idea as well.

JB states it again in GB 56 as The causative principle of the movement, its ponderous impetus.

Ponderous meaning:

1. of great weight; heavy; huge
2. (esp of movement) lacking ease or lightness; awkward, lumbering, or graceless
3. dull or laborious a ponderous oration (from the freedictionary.com)

The idea being that a smaller fast moving mass attached to a ponderous pendulum mass can cause the much heavier lumbering mass to continually perform work in the process of seeking equilibrium and never find it.

The “fast in, slow out� concept is exactly what JB is referring to here and by leading the ponderous mass of a central heavy pendulum with lighter, faster masses we cause a continuous differential of PE to be created in the lateral direction rather than the vertical. This differential is created in the Rotational PE (torque) of the primary pendulum.

We know that any displacement of mass in the vertical direction is useless to our cause as this is conservative. But a lateral displacement can be created essentially work-free.

We can witness this process occurring on any weekday one should choose by visiting a local primary school during class recess as we observe playground swings in constant use. The same work-free lateral disturbance causes the child to swing higher and higher with no work input.

The same cannot be said for CF driven examples as there are none. There are no examples in nature of CF creating or increasing the energy of any natural process. CF is always a dissipative exercise, never a creative one. And is totally confirmed as a conservative force by the 1st law of thermodynamics.

I have documented the exact process you propose in the thread “Rotary Analogue to Milkovic Secondary Oscillator� http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4894

The physical process of MECHANICAL RESONANCE can then easily lift 4 lbs with 1. By initiating a continuous work free disturbance of the lateral CoG we create resonance in the primary pendulum that repeatedly lifts the heavy pendulum mass. Resonance is a natural process employed in thousands of mechanisms, both natural and manmade. In the demo heavier exciter weights have been used to speed up the process but by using lighter weights, the 4/1 ratio can be achieved.

In AP p342 JB says "one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound". Mechanical resonance is the only known physical process by which a heavier weight can be raised by a lighter one. In our swing set example the child's entire body is being raised by simply shifting the lateral CoG of the lower legs fore and aft.

Why not attempt to improve on a process that is already known for doing the job rather than trying to invent new techniques that no one has ever observed in physics?

The improvement in this resonant process is that it has been made work-free due to vertical counterbalancing. Each exciter weight follows a closed loop path which we know is conservative but by combining the vertical CoG of all four exciters, we maintain a strictly linear, lateral translation of the horizontal CoG requiring no vertical PE to be consumed.

No the process has not been close-looped as I am just now constructing the POP. If the loop can be closed electronically then the mechanical loop will be attempted.

Other characteristics are that the closed loop process can operate in either direction, can be precocked for a gravity assisted start, creates prodigious torque from startup, requires no unreliable latching mechanisms and can easily be converted to rotary output.

[daxwc]

MrVibrating:

But MT119 is so abstract as to seem surrealist - what is this metaphor of a snake yakking up into its own arse supposed to mean? Clearly there could be no sane expectation that the fluid motion would self-perpetuate.

Well, actually then it was more of a problem in Bessler’s time and still confuses people today. That is the weight of the bigger volume of fluid (the big bottom) would influence hydrostatic pressure and cause a siphon to work continuously. This is directly related to the hydrostatic paradox which Pascal had worked on 50 years before, that volume and hydrostatic pressure do not affect each other but rather only influenced by height.

Hydrostatic Paradox :-
The seeming contradiction that the weight of the fluid poured into a vessel can be different from the force of the pressure exerted by it on the bottom of the vessel. Thus, in a vessel that is wider at the top, the force of the pressure on the bottom is less than the weight of the fluid, whereas in one that is wider at the bottom, it is greater. In a cylindrical vessel both forces are the same. If the same fluid is poured up to the same height in vessels of different shapes but the same bottom areas, then despite the differences in the weight of fluid poured into the vessels, the force of the pressure on the bottoms is identical for all the vessels and is equal to the weight of the fluid in the cylindrical vessel. This follows from the fact that the pressure of a quiescent fluid depends only on the depth under a free surface and the density of the fluid.
The hydrostatic paradox is explained by the fact that, since the hydrostatic pressure is always normal to a vessel’s walls, the force of the pressure on the inclined walls has a vertical component that compensates for the excess weight of the volume of fluid in a vessel that is wider at the top than a cylindrical vessel with the same bottom area and compensates for the lack of weight of the volume of fluid in a vessel that is narrower at the top. The paradox was discovered by the French physicist B. Pascal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_law

[murilo]

Solid, metallic and/or arranged potentials will allow to get a truly punctual apply on/over any other component, and reach to important values of active pressure in vertical!

[ruggerodk]

- and if you rotate the darned snake, you'll have a spiral tube water pump (http://lurkertech.com/water/pump/morgan/blair/002.htm)

ruggero ;-)

[eccentrically1]

i can't go into details.

Suit yourself.

the floor plan for his windmill:

[/url]

[MrVibrating]

will respond more fully at the w/e, my pc's unstable atm, just lost a looong reply, drat...!

Still, the gist is, have we maybe overlooked the possibility of interacting orthogonal CF components, as indicated in MT119 and MT136..?

Harking back to Orbo, i'm thinking of magnets pulling each other up their curves in attraction - ie. a system wherein the two perpendicular CF components boost one another, complimentarily, under certain radial shifts... if that makes sense..?

Totally speculative, but opens up the possibilities for interesting outcomes... maybe... perhaps the preponderance of right-angles in MT and the AP wheel etc. are metaphors for orthogonal CF components?

eta: PS, Eric Laithwaite's swinging gyro effect comes to mind...