Flippin' Flywheels

[MrVibrating]

The stampers in the Archimedes screw image - i noted previously that this part of the mechanism contains deliberate anomalies that throw off its superficial functionaltiy, and imply something else entirely..

As noted, they cannot operate as input loads, applying torque by being dropped, unless something else first lifts them. However , they cannot work as output loads either, being raised and dropped in turn, unless the wheel direction (and thus that of the attached water screw), is oscillating CW and CCW every 180°.. and further, the entire room is turning upside down each time the wheel changes direction.

But perhaps what this is really alluding to is that the stampers, as linearly-moving masses, apply both positive and negative torques - these inertially-induced 'ice-skater' torques being the form of his 'excess impetus', and some kind of reversal - implied by the front and rear levers cross-connecting the front and rear stampers... and the reversed twist on the rope between the plan and profile views.... and the surreptitiously 'v'-shaped levers, reversing the stamper connection we initially expect we're seeing..

What if the point here is simply using an outbound mass to apply positive torque, while an inbound mass applied negative torque - ie. inversion of the usual ice-skater effect...? I've already shown that an outbound mass can convert CF PE to RKE, though not without some loss, but then it seemed to preclude getting the mass back in again without further loss.. Maybe the trick is to somehow gain more RKE from an outbound mass than is required to bring it back in?

I'm just trying to find any alternative intepretation to 'upwards-falling stampers' besides gravity reversal - a scheme which we all know simply trades angular for linear GPE.. either there IS a way to pull that off, after all, or else there's some other, more consistent intepretation..

[Fletcher]

His wheels could lift a 70 lb load thru a 4 to 1 reduction at the axle.

But a 170 lb man attempting to grasp the rim would be lifted off his feet, and importantly, would stop the wheel.

I believe the statement about the wheel not slowing under load was in relation to the water screw demonstration. If we assume there was no detectable slowing of rpm then normally we would assume the load was insignificant. It was just a demonstration.

[MrVibrating]

... 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?

I suspect that gravity may be the key to harnessing an N3 violation. Vector your reaction mass upwards, and gravity spins it round and sends it back down again - you can bounce reaction mass off of it, inverting it in the process, directly challenging Newton's 3rd.

Maybe that's not the trick, dunno, but whatever he was doing does seem to rely on gravity in enabling or somehow guiding the energy asymmetry.

Obviously i understand that gravity is constant and a closed-loop trajectory through a static field has mirror-image input / output integrals. I'm the very last person here looking for a gravitational asymmetry, and will happily subsist on an exclusive diet of hat should that prove wrong.

Don't get me wrong, a static force is stil just a force, and i see no reason any such force couldn't be substituted for whatever role gravity played. I would expect a Bessler wheel mounted atop a rocket in deep space at a constant 1 G acceleration to function normally, but for whatever reason, Bessler's wheels were relying on gravity in order to facilitate the momentum or KE asymmetry generating the OU.

[jim_mich]

His wheels could lift a 70 lb load thru a 4 to 1 reduction at the axle.

Your statement is somewhat misleading. The actual term that was use was reduced "four fold". The wheel was a peritrochium. Such was in common use during Bessler's time. A large wheel rotated a much smaller axle, which small axle transmitted the load.

Eight inch diameter axle times two (the first "fold" equal 16. Second "fold" = 32. Third fold equals 64. Forth fold equals 128. Just slightly more than 10 feet. The wheel was a little more than four fold, at about 12 feet.

A little "more than four fold" is an old time farmers expression. It describes the peritrochium ratio.

There are some on this forum who can't face the plain and simple facts concerning Bessler's wheel. They insist that there was some sort of four-fold pulley reduction. They can't seem to understand that the peritrochium was itself the reduction. And such reduction was a little more than four fold. A pulley arrangement would be exactly four-time or five-time ratio.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi all,
to run a so called PM wheel under load above and beyond normal friction loses is one hell of an achievement, regardless of the pulley ratios, just putting things in prospective.

[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?

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."

Assuming the translation is right, he did not say what you said.
In conjunction with ordinary machines isn't the same as in conjunction with applied loads.

[ovyyus]

I believe the statement about the wheel not slowing under load was in relation to the water screw demonstration. If we assume there was no detectable slowing of rpm then normally we would assume the load was insignificant. It was just a demonstration.

Johann Weisse reported the constant speed of the Merseburg wheel while lifting and lowering the load, quoted below.

The Kassel wheel turned at 26 RPM unloaded and it slowed to 20 RPM while driving the water screw to 10 RPM (approx 2:1 drive reduction).

'Firstly, the inventor showed us all around and overwhelmingly demonstrated that his perpetual motion machine had no hidden cord as was falsely alleged. The circular machine is about six ells in diameter and has a thickness of about one foot. The inventor started it with the merest little effort. As soon as just one of the internal weights began to fall, the machine started to revolve with such strength that it turned forty of more times a minute, and could only be stopped with great difficulty... the most extaordinary thing I noticed was that the machine showed the same strength and speed during the lifting and lowering of the load... A thorough examination was performed firstly by His Graces Commission, and then by me, together with the officials from the Regional Office and Court. During this examination, not the smallest cavity or defect was found. Because of this, everyone was convinced that the impulse must be maintained from within the machine. Then the machine, now on another support, was started again by an equally gentle push, as described above, and again attained the same fast acceleration. All the mathematicians and other intellectually curious people present observed this and were filled with admiration. The entire machine received the highest praise from all, and the inventor was freed of all the false accusations, suspicions and doubts.' - Johann Weisse, Distict Magistrate, report on Merseburg wheel examination, 31st October, 1715.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Ovyyus, all,

Can you imagine the frill and excitement of building a working wheel, and seeing all though's years of effort coming to life right in front of your eyes. I just hope I get to see this miracle in my life time, even if it is not one that I built, it would still give me eminence pleasure to see a working wheel.

[MrVibrating]

Had a thought a few days ago...

These triangular pendulums - the two opposing weights on the horizontal section are balanced, contributing no GPE, just angular inertia.

So perhaps this figure is a compact metaphor, and the long central pendulum section represents his 'crossbar' - a GPE load, such as one of those diametric weight levers, with negligible change in MoI, coupled to a pair of masses with negligible GPE but significant MoI.. Sounds reasonable, right?

Now recall that aspect ratio asymmetry between those upper rectangular masses in the Mersburg engravings! Perhaps this refers to an MoI variation in this 'flywheel' (or rather flyweight)?

What could change aspect ratio like that? Why, a scissorjack must be the very epitome of a mass that can alter its aspect ratio!

Now consider this in light of those latter MT drawings depicting a long pedulum-type lever, connecting two piston-like mechanisms either side - he draws it in various ways, with water pumps, jacks, cranks and conrods etc., but same basic action - something's swinging back and forth, pumping an inverted pair of linear interactions..

But what about the aspect ratio variation in the brackets (10)? Does that also signify the same thing? It's all very tenuous, but this is the first semi-coherent interpretation i've come up with for this particular asymmetry in those pendulums..

So maybe there's a cheap way of using scissorjacks' redistribution of their own mass to effect an MoI gradient.. or something..

ETA: perhaps this is also the meaning of the asymmetrical horizontal sections of the Kassel engraving too?

[MrVibrating]

Maybe the pendulums represent the diametric weight levers peppered throughout MT, and maybe this is because they proffer some unique advantage...

Maybe the aspect ratio asymmetry between the left and right rectangular masses is meant to convey this leverage advantage - ie. the upper weight appears 'superior' in its proportions..

What i'm thinking of is basically what's shown on the right hand side of the Mersburg engravings - a diametric weight lever, but instead of pivoting directly against the opposite side of the wheel, it is attached to a secondary body, free to rotate about a different axis.

This separate body is represented by the frame (12) that always intersects the border.

Thus, the diametric weight lever is leveraging it's own axis against the angular inertia of the wheel - the wheel's innate resistance to this angular acceleration is represented by the padlock attached to the ground.

As such, the mechanism fulfills two different classes of lever at the same time (classes 2 & 3?), depending on which of the two rotating bodies we take as our rest frame.

Or something like this.. I'm sure these diametric weight levers are a key part of the solution - and the meaning of these pendulums.

There must be some special advantage of a diamateric weight lever, over a comparable radial one... but realisation of this advantage requires that the lever's axis is not attached directly to the opposite side of the wheel, but rather to a secondary rotating body - a 'stator' that is itself also another rotor, albeit one with lower angular inertia.

Does that seem worth investigating further? I could run some comparisons between radial and diametric leverage schemes..

[Fletcher]

It's a stone to look under Mr V.

I always read your thread, hoping that you can join the illusive dots to a solution. You certainly have the determination.

If I am quiet it is because I personally couldn't find the connections to link the bread crumbs. But that doesn't mean there isn't a path there to follow.

[MrVibrating]

Found a few old sims in a forgotten folder, from July 2014..

A penduwheel:



..in retrospect i suspect i was interpreting the thing a little too literally, but still, a diametric weight lever, the stator is a secondary rotor, with a crank and conrod. This much, i think may yet have potential.

As for the upper horizontal section, with the two rectangular weights, my latest thinking is that all this adds, functionality-wise, is angular inertia, therefore the more fundamental clue he'd be trying to convey is that a long weight lever is used to apply torque to an angular inertia - an MoI.

And obviously, in order to generate free energy, it is this MoI that is then dialed up or down by swapping some of it for velocity and thus RKE.

So the logic implies that there must be something special about the diametric weight lever, in terms of the amount of GPE it is able to supply, relative to the scale of the MoI variation is it able to generate.

In short, the implication is that a diametric weight lever can cause a greater MoI reduction than a radial weight lever; that its input PE is less than the output RKE resulting from the MoI reduction it causes...


So i now have an idea of something to test for... comparing the energy potentials of radial vs diametric weight levers. Logically, if there is to be any andvantage then it must arise over a similar displacement - ie. you'd expect GPE to be determined purely by how far the weight on the end of the lever falls, regardless of whether the lever's axis is at the center of rotation, or over on the other side of the rim. Diamteric lever or radial, if GMH is equal then surely so is PE? Will have to have a nose round, see if i can see any potential advantage..


Another old sim i found in the same folder, also from July '14, was an elegant mechanism for converting radial linear motion into opposing angular momenta:



..just using pulleys. This would've simplified the rack and pinion mechanism i resorted to earlier in this thread...

So on the one hand, in two years i seem to have gone nowhere, if not a little backwards.. but that's not entirely true - if i was stuck in a rut back then, i'm even more firmly entrenched in it now.

Leverage, angular inertia, some means to vary it... these are the key ingredients, just from 1st principles. And they're contorted across these engravings in these weird, idiosyncratic ways..

We have diagrams scattered throughout MT where he's saying "further scrutiny is required" - "there's something extra, easily missed, here"... key points that must be grasped, if not readily appreciated.

Yet in these engravings, he explicitly says nothing of the sort, instead giving what reads as a purely utilitarian breakdown of the shown mechanisms. But he does give us these very conspicuous graphical anomalies instead - IOW shouting exactly this same message off the page - "there's more than meets the eye here"..

I'm just currently too thick and distracted to make sense of it..

[MrVibrating]

His wheels could lift a 70 lb load thru a 4 to 1 reduction at the axle.

But a 170 lb man attempting to grasp the rim would be lifted off his feet, and importantly, would stop the wheel.

I believe the statement about the wheel not slowing under load was in relation to the water screw demonstration. If we assume there was no detectable slowing of rpm then normally we would assume the load was insignificant. It was just a demonstration.

You're probably right, although in my dodgy recollection it was Weiss, in reference to the box of bricks, though it matters not what the precise loading was - clearly any load matching ability had practical limits.

But even if it was reduced 16:1, that's still a roughly 4.3 lb constant load applied to the axle, which would, by all rights, have decelerated a motor with a fixed torque - what piqued Weiss's curiosity about this behaviour is the implication that the 'excess impetus' must have increased when under load. The torque appears to be load matching, and this also aligns with Bessler's pitch about gaining further advantage from operating in conjunction with conventional machinery.

I suspect it also aligns with the statorless requirement; that loading the axle causes further internal displacement of the secondary rotor, resulting in the gain rise. Perhaps this internal reaction mass gets lifted higher, or something, so has some limited headroom to increase in magnitude before topping out / over..

Conversely, we can approach this situation from the opposite angle, and consider what might limit this excess-torque factor in an unloaded wheel - the implication being that it needs something to bounce off of. A reaction mass, a counter-inertia. I've made this point before - the efficiency of an unloaded wheel is limited by the MoI of the housing and axle. This is why he says power is limited by radius - because so is MoI, and its practical range of variation.

Some way of perverting a perfectly-elastic collision, into an effective momentum asymmetry.

If rising MoI of the main wheel increases the gain margin, and the gain principle is MoI-to-RKE conversion, then perhaps the implication is that the MoI of the internally-accelerating component is somehow an inverse function of the external MoI - ie. braking the wheel causes further MoI reduction and thus acceleration of the internal parts..

IOW, weighing down the wheel, up to a point, raises the magnitude of the internal MoI reduction and resultant acceleration / KE gain..?

No idea HOW that might be happening, it just seems to be where the clues are pointing..

[MrVibrating]

His wheels could lift a 70 lb load thru a 4 to 1 reduction at the axle.

Your statement is somewhat misleading. The actual term that was use was reduced "four fold". The wheel was a peritrochium. Such was in common use during Bessler's time. A large wheel rotated a much smaller axle, which small axle transmitted the load.

Eight inch diameter axle times two (the first "fold" equal 16. Second "fold" = 32. Third fold equals 64. Forth fold equals 128. Just slightly more than 10 feet. The wheel was a little more than four fold, at about 12 feet.

A little "more than four fold" is an old time farmers expression. It describes the peritrochium ratio.

There are some on this forum who can't face the plain and simple facts concerning Bessler's wheel. They insist that there was some sort of four-fold pulley reduction. They can't seem to understand that the peritrochium was itself the reduction. And such reduction was a little more than four fold. A pulley arrangement would be exactly four-time or five-time ratio.

Interesting interjection, however i think it may be moot - whatever the effective applied load, it was significant enough a discrepancy to inspire Weiss to give what may be the first description of vacuum energy in recorded history, concluding as he did that additional energy, beyond the scope of our material senses, must be flowing into the machine from the surrounding environment.

Eat yer heart out Tom Bearden, eh? Ninja'd... back in the 1700's.

This is a remarkable comment on Weiss's intellect and understanding - a lesser mind, even today, would see only evidence of free energy ex-nihilo.

If a founding father of the modern philosphy of CoE was prompted to invoke vacuum energy as the only possible explanation for what he was witnessing, then i think we can put aside any concerns about power ratios and gearing - the load was by all accounts significant, and any corresponding deceleration all but imperceptible. To the extent that one of the most astute and hard-nosed physicists in the world left the demonstration with a zen-like epiphany of the incorporeal substrate underwriting the material world and our mechanical senses. This, before there was even a standard term for 'torque', let alone any notions of quantum mechanics..

We know of only one conduit by which this energy can cross into our realm - RKE induction, from passive MoI reduction. The terms are set in stone and immutable - momentum is conserved, so MoI is compensated by RPM, and a linear variation in MoI to RPM incurs an exponential rise in RKE because KE evolves as the half square of inertia times velocity while momentum scales linearly.

As such, at half the MoI we have double the RPM and thus twice as much KE. A licence to print money. Or at least, launder it, as Weiss might have it.

[MrVibrating]

Hi all,
to run a so called PM wheel under load above and beyond normal friction loses is one hell of an achievement, regardless of the pulley ratios, just putting things in prospective.

Damn straight, yo.