Flippin' Flywheels

[MrVibrating]

Okay, i can see another problem - i've over-simplified the pendulums and crank assemblies by reducing them to flywheels.

The old 'spherical cow' problem..

My suspicion that opposing angular momentums was the main point of the pendulums, overlooks the function of the varying cranking angle, and equivalently, that of the square wheel turning the water screw.

What both the pendulums and crank, and square wheel on the water screw have in common, is that they cause a pulsing variation in inertia / angle. The inertia is being alternately braked and accelerated.

And it is this pulsing of the angular inertia that is synched with the stampers.

Since, if the attached loads are being raised, then as drawn, the stampers are being dropped against the axle, not lifted, and since no mechanism is shown to suggest how they're re-lifted, the most obvious implication is that the stampers have to fall 'upwards' of their own accord, somehow.

They can't fall inwards against CF, so the only obvious solution is to cyclically rotate the whole diagram upside down, so that 'downwards' alternates between 'inwards' and 'outwards' each full cycle.

This in turn would imply that more energy can be extracted using this pulsed inertia principle, from radially-dopped masses, than is required to rotate them back up again... ie. a path-dependent interaction..

[MrVibrating]

Imagine two flywheels with identical MoI.

One's circular, the other square.

Place 'em side by side, and run a drive belt between them, riding the outside edges.

The instantaneous MoI felt at either axle is 'lumpy'. As the belt rides over the corners of the square wheel, its angular velocity rises and falls.

This lumpy MoI seems to be a consistent feature between the Kassel / Weissenstein diagrams..

[MrVibrating]

..so, if the MoI is pulsing up and down, at the same time the stampers are inputting PE (whether that's GPE or CF PE, or both), rising MoI = negative torque and falling MoI = positive torque...

It looks like the basic recipe for adding energy when MoI is high, and removing it when MoI is low..


What might be useful would be to extract the sequence of stampers rising and falling, and see how it overlays across the sequence of rising and falling MoI, to see if there's a consistent correlation between the pendulum and water screw MoI variations...

[MrVibrating]

...just logically, a square wheel has four corners, so there's four blips in the MoI variation... and there's also four stampers... so there should be a simple interplay between them.

We need to map this sequence, i think..

[eccentrically1]

Look at the box of bricks on the right, numbered 22.

If this load is being raised, then follow the rope's direction - it must be being wound onto the axle.

But if the rope is winding onto the axle, raising the box of bricks, then the stampers are being pushed down into the stamping mill..


..or else, more logically, it is the downwards motion of the stampers that is torquing the axle, and thus raising the box of bricks against gravity.

The stampers could either be propelled downwards by gravity, or CF, or both at once.

But if the upper left bearing pivot on the wall bracket does denote a main axis of rotation for the net system, then the downwards motion of the stampers, whatever force propels them, induces a negative torque upon them.

Likewise, whatever raises them back up, doing so produces a positive toque from them.

This question should be bugging Eccentrically1, if not everyone else.. How could the stampers fall upwards again? The diagram doesn't seem to suggest how they could be re-lifted again.

No, it's not bugging me or anyone else because that isn't what the drawings are showing. The stampers aren't pushed down by the axle's cams. They are lifted by the cams, and dropped by the cams. They aren't torquing the wheel.
Someone else got a similar idea in their head not long ago, who was it, John Doe or someone else. Anyway, it's not a clue. The stampers and the box of bricks were simply loads the wheel was meant to lift (one at a time) for a fixed amount of time.

[Furcurequs]

I believe it was Fcdriver who was talking about the "stompers" somehow being a part of the solution.

[MrVibrating]

Look at the box of bricks on the right, numbered 22.

If this load is being raised, then follow the rope's direction - it must be being wound onto the axle.

But if the rope is winding onto the axle, raising the box of bricks, then the stampers are being pushed down into the stamping mill..


..or else, more logically, it is the downwards motion of the stampers that is torquing the axle, and thus raising the box of bricks against gravity.

The stampers could either be propelled downwards by gravity, or CF, or both at once.

But if the upper left bearing pivot on the wall bracket does denote a main axis of rotation for the net system, then the downwards motion of the stampers, whatever force propels them, induces a negative torque upon them.

Likewise, whatever raises them back up, doing so produces a positive toque from them.

This question should be bugging Eccentrically1, if not everyone else.. How could the stampers fall upwards again? The diagram doesn't seem to suggest how they could be re-lifted again.

No, it's not bugging me or anyone else because that isn't what the drawings are showing. The stampers aren't pushed down by the axle's cams. They are lifted by the cams, and dropped by the cams. They aren't torquing the wheel.
Someone else got a similar idea in their head not long ago, who was it, John Doe or someone else. Anyway, it's not a clue. The stampers and the box of bricks were simply loads the wheel was meant to lift (one at a time) for a fixed amount of time.

But look at the direction the rope's wound on the axle - if the stampers are being lifted, as you believe, then the box of bricks is being lowered, not raised. Am i really the only one seeing this?

Conversely, if the box of bricks is being raised, then the stampers are either being pushed downwards by the axle, or else they're falling downwards and applying torque to it.


That is explicitly what is shown. Not some interepretation, a literal description.

If the box of bricks is being raised, then the stampers must fall back upwards.

Please take a second to actually examine the picture before responding further - look at the rope, follow the directions of rotation..

The box of bricks represents output energy. An attached workload. It's being raised, for demonstration purposes. It's also outside the room, external to the internal mechanism of wheel, stampers and pendulums.

So whatever has lifted the box of bricks is whatever is represented by the pendulums, stampers and wheel.

And the stampers, categorically, either fall downwards, or else are pushed downwards, by the same axle raising the box outside.

In order for the box to have achieved its displayed height, each of the stampers must've been pushed down many times, before falling back up.

Or else, they've fallen down many times and in turn been relifted, by mechanisms unshown.

This isn't some kind of wild flight of inductive reasoning, but what's shown in plain black and white.

He drew, or commissioned, this same diagram twice, showing this same relationship between the rising load and falling stampers.

The nature of this relationship is all the context we have for the meaning or purpose of those pendulums.

There most definitely is a deliberate anomaly here, and the question being begged of us is, how the stampers get back up again..? Somehow, the pendulums must also be part of the solution.

[Fletcher]

But look at the direction the rope's wound on the axle - if the stampers are being lifted, as you believe, then the box of bricks is being lowered, not raised. Am i really the only one seeing this?

If the box of bricks is being raised, then the stampers must fall back upwards.

So whatever has lifted the box of bricks is whatever is represented by the pendulums, stampers and wheel.

In order for the box to have achieved its displayed height, each of the stampers must've been pushed down many times, before falling back up.

This isn't some kind of wild flight of inductive reasoning, but what's shown in plain black and white.

He drew, or commissioned, this same diagram twice, showing this same relationship between the rising load and falling stampers.

The nature of this relationship is all the context we have for the meaning or purpose of those pendulums.

There most definitely is a deliberate anomaly here, and the question being begged of us is, how the stampers get back up again..?

Somehow, the pendulums must also be part of the solution.

I may be able to provide an alternative avenue for thought on the matter Mr V.

No, you are not the only one seeing this, it has been brought up before, but no one could make sense of it AFAIK.

The simple pendulum example.

A normal simple pendulum swinging from 3 o'cl starts with GPE. At 6 o'cl it is in its position of least GPE and maximum KE. Then it continues on the upswing and its KE steadily reduces and its GPE increases to a maximum at 9 o'cl. It never gains in GPE, or has more KE than GPE lost for any height loss or gain etc. BUT ... it has changed orientation which in certain circumstances means a change in torque applied by that pendulum in its new orientation, before it can complete the back swing transition for full reset.

A complex pendulum example.

To me what JB seems to be hinting at is a complex pendulum arrangement. One made up of more than just a single pendulum element. In this case a normal pendulum and a raised and lowered stamper. Of course stampers (vertical lifted mass) don't fall upwards - they must be pulled upwards by an applied force, perhaps thru a communication medium such as a chain, rope, or even a mechanical linkage as shown.

So, can we get a complex pendulum to lose GPE (whilst still having some KE, which it must, to lose height), whilst giving KE (quick initial acceleration) and eventually full GPE to a raised mass at the same time; and then the two elements to swap roles releasing their GPE's and powering each other for the return leg ? This would be a oscillating symbiotic reciprocal relationship between two elements of a complex pendulum device.

Could the devices elements return to their starting positions (the reset), whilst providing momentary torque to a wheel, and NOT change orientation (180 degrees out) like the simple pendulum example ?

Could there be an advantage in using a complex pendulum that resets in one 'swing' transition and not the normal back and forth two transition directions, and what would that be ?

So I say we are likely looking at a strong hint for a complex pendulum arrangement that doesn't give greater GPE or KE than any ordinary simple pendulum. And therefore by deduction the advantage must be in the specific orientations achieved thru the transit cycles and the torque this imparts to a wheel i.e. superior positive torque.

Just my thoughts !

ETA: my WM program is playing up and bombing. I have to spend some time fixing it. When it is good to go I'll put up a vid here of examples of both types of pendulums I mention to give context to the above. I was going to introduce it in my own thread when I got around to it but you've raised the subject so here's as good a place as anywhere.

Who knows - maybe the vid will prompt some deeper connective reasoning for someone ?

[Fletcher]

Here you go - no laws of physics were harmed in the making of this vid ;7)

IOW's, KE's were never greater than GPE lost etc, for ANY height aka. There was no miraculous gain in net GPE. CoE was upheld.

What we do see is the comparison of a simple pendulum system to a complex pendulum system, which returns to start configuration in one transitional morphing episode.

View and digest in conjunction to my above post.

[eccentrically1]

Look at the box of bricks on the right, numbered 22.

If this load is being raised, then follow the rope's direction - it must be being wound onto the axle.

But if the rope is winding onto the axle, raising the box of bricks, then the stampers are being pushed down into the stamping mill..


..or else, more logically, it is the downwards motion of the stampers that is torquing the axle, and thus raising the box of bricks against gravity.

The stampers could either be propelled downwards by gravity, or CF, or both at once.

But if the upper left bearing pivot on the wall bracket does denote a main axis of rotation for the net system, then the downwards motion of the stampers, whatever force propels them, induces a negative torque upon them.

Likewise, whatever raises them back up, doing so produces a positive toque from them.

This question should be bugging Eccentrically1, if not everyone else.. How could the stampers fall upwards again? The diagram doesn't seem to suggest how they could be re-lifted again.

No, it's not bugging me or anyone else because that isn't what the drawings are showing. The stampers aren't pushed down by the axle's cams. They are lifted by the cams, and dropped by the cams. They aren't torquing the wheel.
Someone else got a similar idea in their head not long ago, who was it, John Doe or someone else. Anyway, it's not a clue. The stampers and the box of bricks were simply loads the wheel was meant to lift (one at a time) for a fixed amount of time.

But look at the direction the rope's wound on the axle - if the stampers are being lifted, as you believe, then the box of bricks is being lowered, not raised. Am i really the only one seeing this?

Conversely, if the box of bricks is being raised, then the stampers are either being pushed downwards by the axle, or else they're falling downwards and applying torque to it.


That is explicitly what is shown. Not some interepretation, a literal description.

If the box of bricks is being raised, then the stampers must fall back upwards.

Please take a second to actually examine the picture before responding further - look at the rope, follow the directions of rotation..

The box of bricks represents output energy. An attached workload. It's being raised, for demonstration purposes. It's also outside the room, external to the internal mechanism of wheel, stampers and pendulums.

So whatever has lifted the box of bricks is whatever is represented by the pendulums, stampers and wheel.

And the stampers, categorically, either fall downwards, or else are pushed downwards, by the same axle raising the box outside.

In order for the box to have achieved its displayed height, each of the stampers must've been pushed down many times, before falling back up.

Or else, they've fallen down many times and in turn been relifted, by mechanisms unshown.

This isn't some kind of wild flight of inductive reasoning, but what's shown in plain black and white.

He drew, or commissioned, this same diagram twice, showing this same relationship between the rising load and falling stampers.

The nature of this relationship is all the context we have for the meaning or purpose of those pendulums.

There most definitely is a deliberate anomaly here, and the question being begged of us is, how the stampers get back up again..? Somehow, the pendulums must also be part of the solution.

His wheels weren't lifting the bricks and the stampers together. They were separate demonstrations. The drawings show both loads in their lifted state, so what? That's a marketing tool. The bricks weren't being used to help lift the stampers, and the stampers weren't being used to help lift the bricks. He just drew them together in the same drawing, probably to save having to draw more.

[MrVibrating]

...LOL he could've drawn the rope winding the other, 'right' way around the axle. Then both purported output loads would be operated at the same time, and the drawing consistent with the accompanying explanation.

Maybe he raised the box with the wheel turning in one direction, then, with the rope fully wound onto the axle, lowered it again while operating the stampers. That would be consistent with what's shown in the image, but then would undermine the validity of the stampers demonstration, since the box would now be a source of input energy


What is shown in these diagrams however is an "interaction" - the transmission system is purposefully depicted as dividing the mechanism into output and input sides of an interaction. If the raised box is an output, then the stampers are an input, and vice versa.


Furthermore it is showing us an overunity interaction, since the stampers must each have been raised and dropped multiple times for the box to have been fully raised.


Could this be entirely incidental? Of course. You could be entirely right. All i know is, i'm looking for an interaction, here is one, and it's also drawn so as to imply an I/O asymmetry, to boot.

Moreover, it is an asymmetry between linear and agular work integrals - precisely the kind of asymmetry Bessler hints at in MT 48.

He had two opportunities to draw it your way - the 'correct' way, that is self-consistent and historically accurate regarding the scenes it is claimed to represent. But instead he drew it this way... articulating discrete output and input workloads, mediated by these mysterious pendulums. The image is intentionally designed to prompt the question of how in the hell those stampers might be relifted..

[eccentrically1]

There isn't a right way around the axle for the brick load, it could be lifted both directions the wheel turned. That's probably the way that demonstration was done.
But the stampers could only be lifted in one direction. The cams and the stampers wouldn't line up correctly. If it ran in reverse, the cams would jam against the stampers and snap off before engaging in the holes.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Mr V,

I have to agree with E1, and add that the stampers lift was at total cost to the wheels Kinetic Energy and was putting zero energy back into the wheel.

I will take this opportunity to tell you how my Jacks experiment is getting on, I had to take it down in the spring so my grand children could play in the back garden, I did not get it finished, but I had the sets of jack on the wheel, they both had their weights on the ends of the jacks but not the jacks drive weights on them, or the cord for tapping the velocity shut to turn the velocity of the extending and retracting jacks into a positive shut in the direction of rotation. What I did before I took it down was take the wheel to the reset position and let it go and the wheel with only two jacks was only five degrees off the reset, this showed me that by using the heaver wheel on this build the jacks nearly made the reset, on my last jack build the wheel was a lot lighter and was nearly 15 degree off the reset.

In short the fly wheel effect was storing more of the Jacks kinetic energy via the wheels out of balance section and converting it into rotation. I cannot wait to get this build back together to see how the velocity shuts work out, I am kind of hoping that the shunt can give me 6 extra degrees of rotation.

[MrVibrating]

There isn't a right way around the axle for the brick load, it could be lifted both directions the wheel turned. That's probably the way that demonstration was done.
But the stampers could only be lifted in one direction. The cams and the stampers wouldn't line up correctly. If it ran in reverse, the cams would jam against the stampers and snap off before engaging in the holes.

Yes the rope could be wound either way; i'm differentiating 'right' and 'wrong' in terms of self-consistency within the diagram, and in relation to the demonstration it is purported to illustrate..

It could be wound in the same direction the stampers operate. But as depicted (fastidiously, i might add), the machine should have destroyed the cams having lifted the box to that height, at least by your reckoning.

As drawn, in order for the box to be raised, either the stampers were pushed down by the cams before falling back up, or else they fell down under some external force, applying the torque that raised the box.

So yes, we know it is proposed to illustrate a demonstration, but there's definitely something more here, besides the pendulums that no witnesses described..

..or the bearing on the upper left side wall-bracket thingy - implying that the entire system is subject to induced torques about that axis..

I think JC's hunch re. B's assertion that all the details were available in public images, may be correct. MT hadn't been published, and if this isn't a clue hidden in plain sight then i don't know what is...

[MrVibrating]

I've only just noticed that the waterscrew image shows us a 90° rotation of the waterscrew between left and right halves of the image.

On the left side, the rope is currently running off the sides of the square wheel, so the CVT is at minimum ratio.

On the right side, it's running off the corner of the wheel, so power transfer is maximal at this phase...

..which is also synched with raising the stampers (which are drawn 'correctly' here, being raised and falling back down).

However on the left side, the low-gear phase is depicted not operating the stampers, but rather, winding the bucket off the axle, so an input, not an output load, like the stampers.

In short, the left-side panel shows an input half of an interaction, at lower power, and the right-side panel shows an output half of an interaction, at higher power.

I remain convinced that this periodicity conveyed by the square wheel serves the same purpose, and here is a substitute for, the pendulums in the other two images.

There are multiple factors being subjected to this periodicity - effective inertia, intrinsic momentum, GPE / GMH etc., but the square wheel doesn't seem to involve any torque-cancelling effects like the opposing pendulums or flywheels do, suggesting that particular avenue of investigation may not be relevant..

But there's IS something here. There's some fundamental metaphorical consistency between these images and their mysterious little idiosyncrasies.

He's overlaying some kind of periodic principle weft into what is ostensibly just a diagram detailing a demonstration.

It's something to do with linear to angular coefficients of work, or momentum, or something like this - this is what is being 'pulsed' by the pendulum and crank / square wheel and waterscrew.

So, the implication is of some kind of anomaly cropping up in a differential - a rate of change (of force) asymmetry between input and output halves of an interaction, or something.

Possibly some kind of linear to angular back to linear interaction..? Ie. starting with the bucket and ending with the stampers..?



ETA: for clarity, if any resemblences to actual demonstrations are prima facie only, and the real purpose of the image is to document his principle, then the bucket and stampers are simply linear loads, their precise depictions incidental.

Another point to bear in mind is that the horizontal sections of the seemingly-redundant pendulums nevertheless included in the picture, marked P, may again represent the system's main axis of rotation - so everthing else here may orbit the main system axis, and so implying that the net system may be free to move in response to internally unbalanced forces...