Flippin' Flywheels

[eccentrically1]

But how do you know that Bessler wasn't just trying to show the box could be lifted in either direction?

Why would he break the mechanical logic just to illustrate such a trivial point?

Was anything trivial to that man?

Sure, a rope can wind onto a spool in either direction of rotation, but that lesson hardly warrants a picture, yet here modifies the mechanism to present us with distinct output and an input ends

But you do admit the bricks weren't lifting the stampers , or other combinations. The bricks represent an external input maybe, but I'm sure they don't represent a physical mechanism (levers, springs, weights) as being one that has a linear to angular, or angular to linear, motion that can gain energy from being rotated, or however you phrase it.

The consistent implication seems to be that there's a linear-to-angular mechansim that can be rotated somewhat freely, adding linear GPE by rotating upside down without having to input the corresponding angular GPE - as if it's balanced when lifted by rotation, or something.

Because we know for certain that isn't the solution.

And then, while in this 'warm' zone of potentially-viable-but-missing-something mechanisms, Bessler shows us MT 46:

So again, here we have a mechanism with two distinct sets of angular to linear interactions - the bucket and the balls. But follow it around mechanically, and it perfectly aligns with the given explanation - it's drawn 'correctly'. The balls ride the vaned vertical wheel downwards, ride the screw upwards, and the bucket is wound upwards.

Are you sure? I can't tell which way the rope is winding from the picture.

[MrVibrating]

I suspect the box of bricks is simply an applied load, not necessarily representing a specific component of the mechanism; nothwithstanding that Bessler claims that any applied load will further increase the mechanical advantage... so a load of some kind - an inertia, presumably, is a bonus, if not a prerequisite, but its exact nature superfluous.

It's the stampers that i think represent a formative part of the exploit - each is lifted and dropped twice per cycle, thus accounting for the reported eight impacts per cycle in a wheel using two pairs of linearly-moving masses. The stampers are shown as a pair of units in the Kassel drawing, and thus by extension two pairs in the Mersburg diagrams - these masses are alternating between inner / outer positions, and this induces torques.

Both the Merseburg and Kassel drawings contain wily graphical allusions to gravity reversal, by implying that the stampers can fall upwards.

If a mass can fall upwards, against CF or gravity, then that it obviously OU on a silver platter.

These are more 'toys pages'. MT has more of the same, but in serial form, the same suggestion being implied in the progression of concepts represented by metaphor. He's talking his version of heiroglyphics.

And what he's explaining is the centrality of radially-moving masses. Of varying MoI. Of inducing +/- inertial torques. And something about a force inversion or gravity reversal.


Ed. sp.

[MrVibrating]

There's an obvious implied solution to all this - if pulling a mass inwards induces positive torque, and letting one outwards induces negative torque, and an asymmetry between these torques depends, somehow, upon vertical rotation, then that 'somehow' must be something to do with applying gravity to the negative torque, to reduce or invert it..

I mean, that's about the long and short of it, no?

Because if that's all it comes down to then it's a fairly narrow target of focus..

[MrVibrating]

...also, no one's yet offerd an alternative explanation for the upper left-side wall bracket / bearing in the Mersburg woodcarving - a weird, seemingly superfluous detail, clearly supplanted from the Kassel engraving featuring the waterscrew, but implying that the stamper frame is free to rotate about an axis, presumably in response to some kind of induced torques..

[jim_mich]

... and an asymmetry between these torques depends, somehow, upon vertical rotation, then that 'somehow' must be something to do with applying gravity to the negative torque, to reduce or invert it..

I mean, that's about the long and short of it, no?

No! You jump to a wrong conclusion. Vertical rotation was a matter of convenience and wheel strength. Gravity was not involved. This was shown by the later two-way wheels that were always mass-balanced, and thus not effected by gravity.

All the wheels were rotated by impulse. The weights gained motive forces from their own motions in combination with the wheel rotation. Then they impulsed against the wheel so as to cause more wheel rotation. The early one-way wheels were ONLY STARTED rotating by gravity, similar to the two-way wheels being started by a hand-push. The one-way wheels were rotated by impulse, which impulse Bessler muffled by using felt so as to make them run quietly. But felt absorbs some of the impulse energy and it wears out. So with the two-way wheels, Bessler stopped using felt, and let the weights hit against wooden anvil boards. Thus the two-way wheels were noisy.

As I've said before, the Bessler wheel solution has been unsolved for 300 years simply BECAUSE everyone seeks a gravity solution, which is impossible. The secret is a motion solution.

Obviously these are my opinions. But can you prove me wrong?

[sleepy]

It seems as though everyone has been proven wrong since no one has shown a running wheel.Except Bessler.

[MrVibrating]

OK folks i may have something else...

The two Mersburg engravings, showing the four stampers and three pendulums.

Notice how everything is depicted obeying perspective - the lighting and shading might not be perfect but it's largely consistent.. Look at the plan view on the right - the two support posts (12) are shaded on their insides, and the horizontal bar connecting them, shaded on it's underside. This shading, the pseudo-3D perspective, is consistent with us looking through the frame, and seeing its inside surfaces on either side of us, and the horizontal bar as above us.

And that same perspective is maintained on the left side profile view, too - the stamper box, the support posts (4), all obeying proper perspective.

So.. you've probably picked up on the odd man out already - the central support posts (12).

!

Kind of 'broken symmetry', there.. for some reason.

What are we to make of this? Perhaps we're supposed to move the posts over to the right side, where their perspective orientations would be consistent. But where to the right? That doesn't seem to go anywhere..

But perhaps the key here is simply 'inside' vs 'outside'.. what their twisted persepctive means is a pointer, an indicator..everything to the left of them is inside his machine!

The left side bearing bracket on the wood carving makes sense now!

The wall - the actual border of the picture - is the support posts, (12)!

Look at how the support posts (12) consistently intersect the border!

The plan view on the right is as seen when looking left-to-right at the profile view on the left!

Everything connected to the border is the wheel body / stator / our viewing frame of reference. IOW, the main body of the wheel is the 'stator', and we're viewing the internal components from within the rotating frame.

Everything else not intersecting the border - ostensibly sitting on the floor instead - is actually the 'rotor', and may even be considered as just hanging there in mid-air, supported from the 'stator' by the trunion bearing indicated by the mis-placed wall bracket.

As i suspected, that bearing consistently represents the main axis of rotation - so, looking at the plan view on the right, the wheel, pendulum, posts (4) and the crank / conrod etc. are hanging suspended from the horizontal bar (13)... the main system axis.


The pendulums aren't about timing - they represent inertial torques corresponding to angular accelerations; applying a CW torque incurs a CCW counter-torque, and so the interesting aspect is this induced counter-torque - this is his currency.

The other way we induce inertial torques is by radial displacements - moving an orbiting mass in and out, thus trading MoI for velocity. So this is the second key component of a Bessler interaction.

It's all about the inertial torques, and the two different ways of inducing them. The most obvious implication (yeah i know i say that a lot) would be that there's some kind of combo-move we can pull that'll leave us an uncancelled or unbalanced torque, momentum and energy..

[MrVibrating]

Just noticed something else...

In the Kassel wheel featuring the water screw, the various parts are all denoted by letters, a, b, c and so on, except for the support posts - which in the Mersburg engraving seem to have some kind of special relationship with the image borders - here, they're depicted with curved brackets seperating them from ceiling and floor, ostensibly to show the open nature of the config, but also assigned the number 10, rather than a letter.

I've pointed this out before, and JC's also mentioned it, suggesting it might be a 'w'... but i now realise it's actually another carry-over from another image, this one:



...in much the same way he's transplanted the upper left wall bracket / trunion bearing for the pendulum, into the Mersburg woodcut. In that case, it seems to be hinting at torques applied to the 'stator', ie. the frame. Here however, the inclusion of these parts doesn't seem to imply any obvious change in context - they're just curved brackets, to show there's no hidden transmission or whatever.. surely?

Yet maybe they have more meaning.. in both the above image and the Kassel engraving, these upper and lower brackets have different height vs width dimensions - the lower brackets are narrower and taller. Why?

Note also that the right-side of the above image doesn't show any stand at all - the wheel's apparently supported only by an Indian rope trick...

..which duly ascends out the window...

Similarly, the left-side plan view of the Kassel engraving shows no stand for the axle. Granted, this is just a kind of 'exploded' view and the stand might seem like unnecessary clutter, but perhaps it also means something - stands are interesting because they're usually, by default, part of the stator that the rotor is torquing against. Given his assertions about the importance of being statorless, perhaps each of these various images, with their alternate left / right halves, are depicting changes in some fundamental condition, regarding Newton's 3rd..

Again, like the Mersburg engravings, in the above image, a line drawn directly from the top of the axle to the upper pulley would clip the top of the window, even though, this time, the wheel is much closer to the window..

In other words, he's compensated the geometry to preserve this special relationship between the wheel and pulleys as shown in the other images..

And on that point, note also that the rope coming down to the lower pulley is not 'fastidiously' vertical - which would seem to challenge our presumption that the cut-out hole in post (4) is purely for stability.

And why not also site the lower pulley on one of these raised brackets, likewise eliminating that as a source of input energy from below?

I'm sure there's some kind of 'scheme' here - notice that in all three of these different depictions of the pulleys with the box hanging out the window, that as the box descends, it torques the wheel in one direction, and that this angular acceleration in turn exerts a counter torque on the net system..

..and in all three cases, the box is on the opposite side to that counter-torque - ie., if it was an OB load, and the whole system able to rotate in that direction, the counter-torque from spinning up the wheel is aligned in the opposite direction - if the OB torque's CW, then the inertial torque's CCW, and vice versa..

Maybe that's the basis of the 'scheme' here? Or something like this, dunno..

[MrVibrating]

...and as for these pendulums, why are they consistently shown with this triangular profile?

The two upper masses on the pendulum's horizontal section are not gravitating - they're only contributing additional angular inertia and momentum.

Why might this be?

Could it be to increase the period without raising the length of the Y axis - ie. working around the confines of a limited concealed radius..?

If the pendulum is very heavy, its instantaneous energy may be a significant portion of the total system energy, but whatever its share, it reduces to zero twice per cycle as the pendulum oscillates. Perhaps this swapping of PE / KE between the pendulum and wheel (basically a flywheel for all intents) is the interaction in which we're supposed to look for a potential asymmetry?

Another apparently consistent anomaly is the relative proportions of the two horizontal pendulum masses (11) depicted in the Mersburg engravings - the left one is shorter and thicker in both diagrams.

Does this cross-reference with the raised brackets (10) supporting the stand in the Kassel / Weissenstein pictures? There, the lower item is shorter and thicker, the upper, flatter and thinner.

Perhaps the correlation is not about 'left / below' and 'right / above', but rather states of PE / KE - the thicker, left-side mass (11) is in a raised position, its opposite is lowered, while the spherical one below is also raised... IOW, two weights up, one weight down..


I think the U-shaped pendulum stand (12) in the Mersburg engravings is really cool. So intriguing... the perspective of its vertical columns implies that the rear one should in fact be on the opposite side, left of the front one, and that both should be on the far right side of the image, near the wall and window. Yet, functionally, this piece belongs on the far left - where instead we have this bearing trunion bracket mounted on the border (not a 'wall', since the left side of the pendulum behind is concealed from view) - IOW, the mis-placed mis-drawn pendulum stand (12) is, in some key sense, one and the same entity with the border.

And this is why it is the only item that intersects the border... along with the outer wall and window, upper pulley and applied I/O load (the box).


The border frames what we can see. The enigmatically-erroneous and over-elaborate pendulum stator (12) is conspicuously shaped like a window frame. The rope appears to rise through this window (though contentious - note carefully that its point of intersection coincides with the wheel edge- a deliberate ambiguity?).

This frame is some kind of magical window into backwards land, because not only does its perspective puts it out of place, but on the other side, some important, integral detail has gone into reverse...

...the direction of the lock has changed - it was pointing right, but now it points left. In the woodcut, its number (24) has also been flipped to (42), highlighting this reversal of fortunes.. Note also that the lock moves from the face, to the edge..

Reversal of a braking torque? Reversal of a reactive torque, perhaps? Gravity reversal by going upside-down? Momentum reversal as by a pendulum changing direction?

Does the long diagonal section of rope rising through this frame and outer window represent energy gain?

Do these frames and windows literally represent what we understand as reference frames? Was Bessler literally thinking "frame" in the same sense we do today?

OMG, eh? ;)

the pendulum stand (12) is some kind of rotated or flipped reference frame, but it is also the observer reference frame - the border, our window into our view upon the scene.

This scene is depicting multiple reference frames - not just in terms of plan and profile views, but with respect to relative motions of two component systems or bodies; everything else not intersecting the border has its own independent reference frame.

The obvious implication being that the border / outer frame = his "peritrochium" - the wheel's literal frame and axle - while the 'floor' of the room (which after all is only implied by the shadows falling on it, and not otherwise depicted), upon which everything else appears to be sat, has a separate, indepepndent reference frame.

It is a foregone conlcusion that a thermodynamic asymmetry implies some kind of reference frame divergence...

Gravity-assistend N3 break anyone?

[MrVibrating]

Maybe the horizontal section of the pendulums represents the same function fulfilled by the scissorjacks - of varying the MoI.

Explanation: the aspect ratio asymmetry between how the left and right side masses are depicted on the right side pendulum, could be correlated with the offset axes of the other two pendulums - the commonality being that whether as a function of a varying axis or varying distribution of the masses themselves, the left and right sides have differing - and perhaps alternating - MoI's.

At least, in the two Mersburg illustrations. In the Kassel / waterscrew image, the upper horizontal sections of the two disconnected pendulums are in a 2:1 length ratio - a functionally irrelevant detail, but perhaps another allusion to this same point re. varying left / right MoI's?

In the Weisenstein image featuring just the box, pulleys and pendulum, the only apparent asymmetry is between the aspect ratios of the upper and lower brackets supporting the vertical post. Yet there is another, which only becomes apparent when closely following how a pendu-wheel operates; the cranking radius alternately adds and subtracts to the conrod length each full rotation!

I've highlighted this asymmetry previously with sims, but its effect is that the amount of angular displacement of the wheel relative to that of the pendulum also has a leftwards / rightwards asymmetry! Hence the net MoI as a function of pendulum direction is varying!

This seems to be a consistent theme...

[eccentrically1]

I suspect the box of bricks is simply an applied load, not necessarily representing a specific component of the mechanism; nothwithstanding that Bessler claims that any applied load will further increase the mechanical advantage... so a load of some kind - an inertia, presumably, is a bonus, if not a prerequisite, but its exact nature superfluous.

Where did he say the load increased the mechanical advantage?

[WaltzCee]

Where did he say the load increased the mechanical advantage?

Although I don't know where, I think this has been talked about. Imagine, there's no heaven. or possessions. OK, now back to the point. Suppose it's possible to cause something to sling around and rotate. The faster it moves, the more effect centrifugal force will have. Hang a load on it and it won't move as fast; hence the less of a parasite centrifugal force will be.

Am I the only one that sees this?

You can't be serious. I'm the only one? No way.

[MrVibrating]

I suspect the box of bricks is simply an applied load, not necessarily representing a specific component of the mechanism; nothwithstanding that Bessler claims that any applied load will further increase the mechanical advantage... so a load of some kind - an inertia, presumably, is a bonus, if not a prerequisite, but its exact nature superfluous.

Where did he say the load increased the mechanical advantage?

DT p.204/5:

"Everything which up until now has been achieved via the
agency of water, wind, weights or animal power by
means of various machines, (page 53), be they water,
wind, tread, or hand-mills, cranes, winches, jacks,
pulleys or whatever, could equally be achieved using my
P.M. machine – indeed, often with much greater
advantage, especially since the motive force of the
device, which at the moment is only that of a small
working model, can be multiplied to an almost infinite
degree through combination. Further advantage can be
obtained by working the device in conjunction with
ordinary machines, and altogether there is no load or
burden too great for the machine to face if the working
arrangements are properly set up."

[Fletcher]

Mr V ..

Initially in the passage Bessler talks about other 'agencies' (water, wind, weights, animal power) connected to machines to do work. These being Prime Movers presumably (further down the passage called "the motive force") ?!

He then defines machines as "be they water, wind, tread, or hand-mills, cranes, winches, jacks, pulleys or whatever".

He then says "Further advantage can be obtained by working the device in conjunction with ordinary machines"

Is an ordinary pulley or jack without a motive force an ORDINARY machine ? It certainly is a basic machine.

Or, is a weight driven clock or water or wind mill (with a motive force in action) an ORDINARY machine ?

1. So it could be interpreted as replace the usual motive force coupled to a machine with his PM machine (and he says that).

2. Or, add his PM machine in tandem to an ordinary and well known motive force (of which he mentions above) to 'increase its power output' ?

3. Is your interpretation I think - that coupled to a basic machine (no accepted motive force in action) this creates a feedback that increases Work Output capability above the PM machine itself ?!

[MrVibrating]

In the same or related passages he talks extensively about the internal power conversion - explaining how, for a given dimensions, he can make the power large or small, arranging it to a perfectly-calculated degree, and multiplying it up as much as fourfold.

Eslewhere he further claims that given enough time he could construct a wheel that turned very slowly but with great force, while sounding a steady rhythm.

So the 'useful property' an attached machine might contribute wouldn't simply be further power conversion - the use of pulley and tackle, the principles of leverage etc. were ubiquitous and he's rather trying to sell up a particular quirk of his machine - if a potential buyer is thinking "could this be powerful enough for my needs?", Bessler's preempting an answer with this tantalising allusion to load-matching output.


The only other things an attached load might contribute are input energy - which would of course muddy if not invalidate his whole selling point, or the opposite - an output load - as if taking KE away from the wheel causes more to be induced internally..

Or else, simply inertia, and periodicity - which would be consistent with the Noether principle and implicit time-dependence of a symmetry break.

I think the most consistent interpretation is that he's giving us another angle on this load-matching behaviour mentioned by Wolff and Weiss - wherein the wheel spun at the same speed regardless of whether it was loaded or unloaded (or even, IIRC, lowering a load).

This also ties in with the 'slow, high torque + steady rhythm' wheel he alludes to.

The slower it's forced to go, the greater the OU / angle in the other direction, internally..

It's either a CW vs CCW KE asymmetry - which you'll doubtless agree is fairly trivial to achieve while still preserving momentum symmetry, although how that might be converted into an I/O asymmetry is anyone's guess - or else an interaction not respecting momentum equality.. with the degree of I/O energy asymmetry being proportionate to the momentum inequality.

Or something.

What else can an attached 'conventional machine' contribute?

Obviously this load-matching must have limits - braking the wheel merely lifted his assistant off the ground, without opening a white hole in spacetime. But up to a point, braking the wheel only makes it more OU..

That seems to be the thrust of his point to me, and the most consistent interpretation WRT the other clues..