MrVibrating wrote:
The idea suggested by KAS above has a lot going for it - although picking up a weight incurs a counter-force (propelling the planet downwards), dropping one, especially inside an independent (ie. rotating) reference frame, exerts no counter-force on whatever it's dropped from.
This is correct in that when a weight falls, the earth raises toward the weight by the same value. And there we have our power supply - Gravitational Reaction.
This may seem inconceivable but it is the only logical explanation as don't forget; Energy cannot be created or distroyed.
With Gravitational Reaction, there is payback in that the earth would move (albeit undetectable) in the direction of the wheel, complying with the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of conservation of energy.
If this proves correct, t would certainly silence the detractors who look upon this forum as a collection of miss guided nut cases.
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.�
Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947
james.lindgard: "F = mv^2/r" - that's centripetal.
KAS: "when a weight falls, the earth raises toward the weight by the same value. And there we have our power supply" - that's loosing GPE.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
ME, That's correct, unless the reaction is used to move mass horizontally or at right angle to the direction of gravity toward the axle of the wheel as explained in my previous post
As one assumes the wheel as a whole remains stationary (and doesn't fly, fall, or starts rolling around the room) then it should be the overbalanced mechanism doing some kind of wobble: using GPE and restoring GPE, averaging to basically zero GPE (loss and gain) for some complete cycle.
In the mean-time we hope to retrieve some energy from such action; it might as well be as you suggested or something FCdriver is hinting at.
I think we agree that the wobble (at least the deceleration effect on the wheel) has to be minimized to gain the maximum RPM and power, or otherwise all the surplus energy (if it's there) goes to re-acceleration instead of (plain) acceleration.
In my research I come to the conclusion that the optimum amount of mechanism should be an odd number >1 (It is tempting to suggest a prime-number).
In some mathematical perfect situation (read: easy calculus) an odd amount would have twice the smoothing frequency compared to an even amount, and still has half the "wobble"-variation compared to the situation where its has twice the amount of mechanisms.
...if I could only translate this into a working mechanism to verify what I just wrote...
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
That's uncanny ME. I have alway been firmly in the odd number camp with my initial experiments using 3 mechs.
The gravitational reaction force I refer to can be explained in an analogy.
If you take a surfer on a wave, he continually falls on the wave but never loses height. Instead, he moves at right angles to the direction of the force.
Now, I'm not nieve enough not to know that the energy in the wave moving upwards and generated at a different point in time is causing the affect and not gravity but it's worth pointing out that this couldn't happen without gravity.
Now if we think of the wave energy rising to meet the surfer as gravitational reaction energy, a picture starts to emerge.
This is where I am in my research where I am trying to develop a device that mimics the wave mechanically, but directing the force and counter force (intigated by gravity) horizontally between the axle and the outer rim of the wheel.
Initial experiments are proving very interesting to say the least. And all within the boundaries of known physics.
If or when a successful system is developed to achieve this, the force can be used to do all manner of things within the wheel.
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.�
Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947
Wheel Fletcher wrote:How does one increase rpm and power by the addition of more mechanisms (given the space available) ?
If an arrowsmith shot a glancing arrow into a wheel and got it spinning, then shot a 2nd arrow into the wheel before it stopped spinning, the 2nd arrow would be adding energy at a level greater than the initial arrow at a stopped wheel.
What ever the mechanism, if it can cause a wheel to spin then additional mechanisms would be imparting their energy at higher and higher rpm's.
I believe centrifugal force will keep the wheel from spinning apart.
I call this AreoWheelSmith.
Maybe tomorrow, the good Lord will make your spinner a ra-ra-ra-ra-ruuuuner!
Dream until your dream comes true
ETA: A wheel would also be constrained by a mass's ability to fall faster than the wheel is spinning; that is if you believe moving weights are going to cause the wheel to spin.
I calculate a 16 foot radius wheel wouldn't be able to spin faster than 30rpm or the moving weights would have to be shot like an arrow to move into the direction of the rotation.
I don't know how the bow's going to get pulled to make that twang!
Over 18 years I've tried to 'interpret' clues left by Bessler. All from John Collins publications of AP; DT; and MT (unpublished by Bessler). I've read the wiki pages clues etc. I've followed too numerous threads in this forum to count.
I read others translations to see if there are substantial differences - sometimes there are and sometimes not. Some translators are more skilled at the art than others. All the time aware that Bessler wrote in a language that is not my own, so ambiguities will arise thru that translation process being once removed.
I have often disappeared down rabbit holes of my own making. Grasping at straws so to speak, which then lead me off at a tangent that I thought might have possibilities. All to no avail.
I have looked at Bessler's writings and pictures and poems as if they are literal, figurative, metaphors, anecdotes, and types of symbolism.
In this thread I have returned to the literal - whatever Bessler had he hid in plain sight - what if he were literal descriptions ? - what evidence do we have for that ?
BTW - I appreciate everyone's considered thoughts shared here in this topic - I agree with most of what has been said. Rather than address all the individuals who posted I will make some generalized statements that I hope will prompt some further responses.
Firstly I take the point that MT seems to be a progression of thoughts, building to a climax subsequently hidden from us. As Bill says most of MT is about the cart with almost no mention of the all important horse. Kaz and others talk about what that horse might be, and that is an interesting rabbit hole in itself.
But Bessler seems to hint at a particular mechanism - the 'hero' mechanism as Oystein translated it. This mechanism must do something special. What is it ? - What does it do ?
Both Oytsein and John Collins say they have found a particular mechanism - Oystein says it is shown the codes from AP in pictorial form - in many different proportions and many times - he also says the same hero mechanism is shown multiple times in MT - so it is a common (mechanical) form that we do not recognize as having the same potential that Bessler identified. That's unfortunate !
John Collins has a favoured mechanism that he has identified thru his different efforts.
It is my contention that both John and Oystein will have identified the same mechanism - that mechanism will be found in multiple MT's (carts) as the basic Prime Mover structure/component - sometimes associated with a cart and sometimes not. MT contains number and letter codes with one of the most glaring being the two types of 'A's.
So, if as I've expounded here that NO mechanism can lift more for less so to speak (no, I don't have to be pedantic and explain that further) because of Archimedes Law of levers universal mathematical limitations to leverage principles then we have to explain what this hero mechanism can do ?
If it can not give more GPE to a system that GPE expended (turned into KE) under the influence of gravity force acting on internal wheel bodies then we need another explanation for continued imbalance - In my mind that limits the field to a mechanism that moves masses and in doing so causes the system CoG to be asymmetrically centered - in affect a circulatory CoG pathway shape that causes more positive torque than negative torque.
N.B. please note, that any leverage system can only move another body of mass when the GPE lost of one side of the fulcrum is greater than the GPE gained (or KE gained) of the other side AT ANY TRANSITORY HEIGHT.
What is the correct-handle construction etc ? And when the Prime Mover complete mechanism is found how does this help many different types of 'cart' it is coupled to ?
What did Bessler see in that mechanism to warrant him calling it a 'hero' mechanism ?
Bessler's literal descriptions in MT show a path to finding his mechanism and discerning its true purpose !
A spiral with a cable rapped around it, it moves in a slow steady progression, which releases once full, when a back pressure. It allowed him to use more than be limited to 360 degrees for both lift and drop. He had 360 degrees of lift, and then drop which was only 90 degrees. He only used drop that was most efficient. Because the drop followed the rotation of the wheels movement, then lift would restart. The slack of the cable once released had a weight attached to it, which dropped on hollow warped boards so that he knew they were working. The wheel was hollow and the space inside was used to lift a drop levers, which ratcheted the wheel.
If the wheel moved easily in either direction the stampers could not be attached to the axle because there was always one in contact. I have seen nothing which said once the stampers were removed it move in either direction only that it easily moved in either direction? It would only take a short distance of rotation to bind against a stamper if moved backwards?
