Flippin' Flywheels

[MrVibrating]

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.

But as i've meticulously laboured already, what is it that these ordinary machines might contribute?

If it's input energy, then that kinda muddies if not invalidates the purported efficiency, and worse, might instil doubt about the efficacy of the invention - and in this passage he's trying to do the opposite of admitting weaknesses, and rather, selling up the potential advantages to prospective buyers.

So an external machine could contribute input energy, which seems an unlikely intention, or else output energy - ie. a load.. or else, assuming that the external machine in question was itself perfectly efficient, then the input and output laods would be equal, and all it is contributing is inertia and periodicity.

have i missed anything else?

[MrVibrating]

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.

Thanks Ovyus for finding this. Have i mis-remembered Johann Weisse for Andreas, or are there two Herr Weisses involved?

Regardless, i'd found the passage relating how the speed was constant whether loaded or unloaded, and recalled this other description of the same effect even when lowering the load, though couldn't remember where from.

Was worried i'd dreamt it or something..

So this is an exciting, and potentially revealing implication - that the same excess of negative torque was produced when lowering the load, as excess positive torque when raising it, right? IOW, over-torquing the wheel reverses the sign of the asymmetric interaction!

It's as i the thermodyamic asymmetry is 'hunting' for that 40-odd RPM sweet spot, a dynamic equilibrium below which there's a surfeit of positive torque, and beyond which the excess torque turns equally negative.


So, extrapolating a basic symmetry here, the more positive torque we apply, the more negative torque it responds with. Up to a point, anyway, beyond which we'll have exhausted whatever's causing that headroom.

[ovyyus]

So this is an exciting, and potentially revealing implication - that the same excess of negative torque was produced when lowering the load, as excess positive torque when raising it, right?

I guess it's possible. It could also mean this particular Merseburg wheel demonstration employed some sort of lifting/lowering load reduction. Perhaps lifting a 'whole' box of bricks was aimed at replicating a standard building practice of the time and, in order to accomplish this, a lifting reduction ratio was employed to suit the limited wheel power. Critics may have complained if the wheel could only lift a quarter box of bricks directly from it's 6 inch axle. Product marketing can be tricky.

[MrVibrating]

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.

Brian Cox was in the minor headlines today discussing the anthropo-cataclysmic solution to the Fermi paradox..

..it's also a potential factor in the Drake equation..

What if most intelligent lifeforms discover OU at their pre-industrial stage just as we did back in 1712.

When i say we may have dodged a bullet, you think i'm being melodramatic, but i honestly get a chill down my spine...

Cox's basic point was that maybe these destructive techs propogate faster than the legislative and political bodies required to guarantee safety.

It's long struck me that teh interwebz could be the facillitator of our inadvertent spontaneous dissasembly, as much as a free energy revolution.

We have sod's law, Murphy's law, the basic unwritten laws of unintended consequences, deities LOL'ing at the plans of mice and men...

We HAVE to go straight to government or else get organised to ensure the discovery has enough time and high-level exposure to determine safety, which may well entail full unification, before letting the genie out, cause there's no way it's going back in, and, just as Weisse noted, evidence of free energy is intrinsically impossible - we can only interpret it as evidence of an unknown source.

The concern is not exhausting it, but simply that we might not have any prospect of making a dent in it before causing the local island of stable elements to shift, irrevocably, or else something equally catastrophic happens to mass, gravity, Earth's orbital or angular momentums or what-have-you..

A fraction of a percentage of people might genuinely see OU coming (much as Weisse et al back then)... but almost no one would expect such cosmological implications from it.

Get in, eh? We could be "The Deciders"! Can you feel the awseome power and responsibility? As if fame and fortune wouldn't be enough, maybe our destiny lies not with energy liberation, but rather, dependent upon snuffing out and supressing any violations of the perfectly fair laws that've got us this far..?

One angle i've considered is leveraging disclosure to promote efforts to prove danger - so exploit the self-interest of the establishment and those set to lose out, in safegaurding all of our futures along with theirs.

This would be like the tobacco industry voluntarilly opting to prove their own toxicity and harm, except here we simply do not know, and cannot reliably afford to guess, the stakes with which we're playing. It might not just be us, or even our world, on the losing end..

[MrVibrating]

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.

Thanks for the kind words mate...

..and likewise, if i'm late to respond i'm just taking bites and potshots at this inbetween bouts of work, rest and inebriation..

But the solution is mocking us. I know you feel it too.. Two forces, some mass, and 360°. Five millenia of literacy, 1.8 trillion times three score and ten, and only one of us has solved this? How stupid are we? We burn through trillions of dollars of oil, fusion research, even envisaging Dyson spheres, the ultimate folly to our sublime ignorance of what must be right under our stupid noses...

[Andyb]

Mr vibe, i still love your tongue ,i think a win win would be best regarding energy producers ,you share a good point with regard to the kind of ou you create Tesla charge could of been a problem i always thought , not to say it would, but hey we could end up over charged and manic, oh shit this all sounds very familiar,maybe 8.4 billion gravity motors vibrating in unison could create a standing wave that would fracture the planet, a question some one should ask for sure ,but hey we would find another way ,i would just love a choice ,take care.

[daanopperman]

Mr V ,

I hope if someone ever rediscover the wheel , and it is earth driven , he has the sence to burry it deep , 1000 years deep , for there are those whom would sell it ,and worse , those whom would bye it to make a buck .

But back to the wheel , your wheel , so it seems you know how it should work , but have not found the blueprint .
A while ago , I said the same as you did yesterday , that the 2 weights connected to the pendulum could not help the pendulum give imputus to the wheel , for they are in constant equilibrium , but raise MOI .

Now at the same time I suggested that the pendulum and the cranck on the wheel could give one almighty kick , one to the other , depending which was the lightest and which was the slowest . The wheel can rotate at speeds at will , and the cranck will have the same through at all speeds , but the pendulum CAN NOT change its oscalating time .It can change the amplitude , but not the frequency . When the frequency of the crank change's , it is brought to a sudden halt by the pendulum trying to complete it's osculation .

This might be a way for you to reduce the moi , and increase rpm .The nice thing about this is that when the pendulum has done it's work , it is free to fall back under gravity with no need to input energy to get it to increase velocity up to 6 o clock .
Hope you may see what I am trying to convey .

Daan .

[eccentrically1]

DT p.204/5:

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.

But as i've meticulously laboured already, what is it that these ordinary machines might contribute?

If it's input energy, then that kinda muddies if not invalidates the purported efficiency, and worse, might instil doubt about the efficacy of the invention - and in this passage he's trying to do the opposite of admitting weaknesses, and rather, selling up the potential advantages to prospective buyers.

So an external machine could contribute input energy, which seems an unlikely intention, or else output energy - ie. a load.. or else, assuming that the external machine in question was itself perfectly efficient, then the input and output laods would be equal, and all it is contributing is inertia and periodicity.

have i missed anything else?

I agree, I don't think he meant an ordinary machine providing input energy. He never demonstrated his wheels in conjunction with a windmill, hah.
So he must have meant in conjunction with any other type of machine that would give further mechanical advantage. but we know that doesn't work, the more complicated a complex machine becomes, the less efficient it becomes, and any mechanical advantage gained by the conjunction is offset by the additional inefficiency. Back to the drawing board.

[rlortie]

Hello all!

although I frequently log in, it has been some time since any posts. Thought it time I made myself visible letting those of interest know that I am still here and as others, still in pursuit of that Damn PM machine.

Fall is in the air and the leaves are falling, so is the rain. there will be no leaf raking today. While killing time on the old PC I ran across the following bookmark. Thought some may be interested and others may find it to be a bed time reader! 28 pages in all expressing the views of WILLIAM KENRICK,Charles-Street, St. James's Square, March 1. 1770.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ecco/004818 ... &view=text

Title: An account of the automaton, constructed by Orffyreus: in two letters; the one, from Professor 'sGravesande, to Sir Isaac Newton; the other from Baron Fischer, to Dr. Desaguliers. To which is annexed the testimonial of the Prince of Hesse Cassel, ... likewise animadversions, by Professor Allaman of Leyden, ...
Author: Kenrick, W. (William), 1725?-1779.

Enjoy!

Ralph Lortie

[raj]

My dear Ralph,
THANK YOU.

You have brought to my attention a valuable piece of information about Bessler's wheel/invention, when I needed it MOST.

Raj

[ME]

Same text on a single page: http://ota.ox.ac.uk/text/5449.html

[MrVibrating]

Quick idea, back later:

- if the sign of the output torque on the main shaft can alternate between positive and negative in order to maintain stable speed - in other words seamlessly transitioning between OU, but equally, UU..

- and further supposing that the source of these torques is primarily inertial (could be inertial or gravitational, but let's go with the former for now), then something that is changing its MoI has some kind of semi-rigid connections to both rotor and 'stator' or whatever the reaction mass is. This must be the case, since its distribution of these +/- torques between these two masses is dynamically variable.

- Now consider this 'Y'-shaped interaction i've been playing with - a radially-sliding mass moves outwards, causing equal opposite angular accelerations of the two upper arms.

- Maybe the key is simply to connect these two opposing angular accelerations of these upper arms to our two main rotating masses..!?

The thing is, we're looking for a config in which we don't design into it which sign of torque is sunk into which of the two inertial frames - instead, it chooses for itself, on purely circumstantial basis, how much of which torque goes where.

Think about it - this Y-shaped mechanism, in generating equal opposing torques from a linear excursion, thus generates both positive and negative torques on both extension and retraction - we just need to swap which armature connects with which mass between in and out strokes.

As such, potentially, it would seem, we could always rectify the positive and negative torques into the same mass, or its opposite, at will, no matter whether the mass was coming in or going back out.

If the negative inertial torque is always sunk into something that's falling under gravity, and the positive torque always applied to something rising, then we gain energy equal to the full torque * angle of the effective N3 break - which, in principle, could be 100% asymmetric - ie., no bleedover of stray +/- torques into lift or drop.




In a similar vein, a ratcheted pendulum might be useful for inverting reaction torques via gravity:

- ratcheted pendulums seem of limited use in applying GPE; take any energy out of a pendulum and you then need to re-lift it. But as a reaction mass, you could kick off against it, sending it rotating in the opposite direction, up to its apex, whenceupon gravity inverts it and sends it back down - potentially converting counter-momentum back into positive flavour. So obviously, the ratchet could rectify which torques go where.



If these seem like the same tired and futile ideas rehashed, they are, and i'm not even sure about the re-hashed bit - i've probably already disproven these concepts and forgotten about it.

All i'm trying to focus on now is the question of what principles might be consistent with this reactive output torque sign.

- How about if we vary the MoI's of rotors 1 and 2 inbetween alternating these rectified inertial torques between them? Maybe it is the balance of relative MoI's that is floating and reactive..

- maybe gravity comes into the mix, with OB / UB torques likewise being divided and recombined or offset against the inertial torques - the Toys page might suggest from respective pairs of masses (maybe 'adult' and 'child' differentiate action and reaction, or else gravitational vs inertial torques).


Bessler's principle reacts to positive applied torque with negative, and vice versa. This seems a potentially highly informative criteria, combined with the statorless requirement - we only have two potential workloads, inertial and gravitational, each can produce equal opposite torques, and there has to be reaction mass despite the apparent lack of conventional stator, therefore the exploit depends upon an effective N3 violation, and it is the mechanism or principle responsible for this symmetry break that is dynamically responding to the applied torques.

TL;DR - the torque asymmetry's floating. Think of something that does that, and you're warmer than if you're not.

[MrVibrating]

On the toys page, the 'Y'-shaped staff - maybe that ties in here? I'd previously noted that the alternating eyelets and chain may represent a sequence of positive and negative torques, but i'd been stumped by the 'Y'-shaped top of the staff..

However maybe they represent these paired angular accelerations i've been looking at, driven by radial translations?

If this is so, then the asymmetry of the two angles may represent a corresponding asymmetry of momentum, energy or torque from pumping masses in and out..?

Also, if the two snap toys represent 'parent' and 'child' relationships, then this explains their opposing disposition - the lower toy is switched leftwards in reaction to the upper one having switched rightwards.

I suspect the upper toy represents gravitating weights - such as the diametric weight levers; either they're rotated into a loaded (with GPE) position, then drop radially, or else they're raised radially, and dropped angularly - ie. as OB torques.

This in turn induces the child reaction torques.

The reaction torques are phased inbetween the primary torques, if the alignment of the toys relative to the eyelets is anything to go by - as if they're only applied to one side of the axle, while the reaction torques are applied equally to either side of the axle, or perhaps, neither side.

This might imply that the positive and negative reaction forces are a zero-sum deal, while the primary forces are somehow unbalanced in terms of CW to CCW distribution.. But taken together with the whistling top, the implication of the primary displacement being gravitational and the secondary, inertial, the foregone conclusion and de-facto requirement for a closed-loop cycle is that the net induced child forces are sufficient to restore the GPE.

Since i suspect the child forces to be inertial in nature, the implication of that assumption is that the GPE is most likely re-lifted by rotation, as an UB load, over-powered by these reactive inertial torques, and thus that the GPE is output by linear / radial excursion; this would presumably be the angular to linear asymmetry he alludes to in the MT 40 range (his "additional structures").

This would also be consistent with the operation of those diametric weight levers as the primary masses - dropping down somewhat linearly, and being rotated back upside down by the inertial torques their GPE unleashes.

Maybe this is what the MT 50 range is about - MT 51 introduces the ratcheted pendulum - again, fairly useless as GPE mediators, but very interesting in terms of momentum conversion - offering both sign reversal, and selective momentum transfer between co-rotating bodies.

Consider MT 55 in this light for instance - the paddles serve to impart momentum of opposing sign into the pendulums - a straightforward elastic collision. This initial collision likewise imparts the corresponding counter-force upon the paddles, however then the pendulums swing upwards, slipping their pawls, reach their apices and then fall back down, applying their freely-reversed momentum back into the system...

Surely this is what he's on about with these ratcheted pendulums? Same point i've been making for a while - aim your reaction mass upwards, and gravity will freely reverse its momentum for you. When it comes back down, now, your action and reaction momentums are equal in magnitude and sign - and if the two masses share a common axis of rotation then they also remain in the same location relative to one another.

Although i noticed this maybe a year or so ago, it's only now i begin to see hints of it here.. it seems to tick all the right boxes though. And ratcheted pendulums aren't a requirement, they're just a graphical embodiment of the principal. For a simple version, chuck an apple up in the air and then catch it - the counter-motion of the earth is imperceptible; from your POV gravity has reversed the sign of your reaction momentum: throwing the apple upwards pushed you downwards, but so did catching it again.

This could explain the vertical requirement, and the statorless requirement, and possibly the reactive output torque behaviour too, as well as the upwards-falling stampers in the Mersburg and Kassel drawings, the semi-inverted MT 47, the angular to linear asymmetry hinted at in MT 48, the meaning of the Toys page, as well as why MT 55 was apparently the last word on what we really need to know...

TL;DR - if action and reaction are equal and opposite, but what goes up must come down, then a reaction mass that goes up must come back down perfectly inverted, and our equal action and reaction momentums are no longer opposing.

The reason i stalled on this gravity-assisted momentum-reversal concept before, was that i couldn't see how to accumulate the momentum over successive cycles.. but straight off the bat, in the first instance, it works fine - it's obviously trivially simple to employ a pendulum as a reaction mass, and then gravity does the rest - reversing that reaction momentum, for free.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Mr V,

Your quote,

Get in, eh? We could be "The Deciders"! Can you feel the awseome power and responsibility? As if fame and fortune wouldn't be enough, maybe our destiny lies not with energy liberation, but rather, dependent upon snuffing out and supressing any violations of the perfectly fair laws that've got us this far..?

Do not worry just yet, I am only testing the perfectly fair laws to make sure they are.

One thing I have discovered, they did not do all the checks, "to be perfectly fair"!

But ha, if you can use gravity to power the universe and not input any extra energy into the system, using the perfectly fair laws, then momentum is free once something is set in motion in the right set of conditions, so maybe that's the legal loop hole.

[MrVibrating]

OK so it seems the thing we'd be applying force to, would be the orbiting masses moving in and out - their inertial torques are the reactive force we feel at the axle.

We don't know if the main wheel is driven primarily by one sign of torque or the other, or a combination of both - a common feature of funky letter 'A'-shaped, 'W'-shaped and 'Y'-shaped linkages is that all of them could be applied to convert linear CF / CP forces into paired opposing torques - whether sliding in or out... the basic common motion is, something moves in and out radially, and each of these radial translations is directly coupled to a pair of equal opposite angular translations..

But during the acceleration phase, when the system is below its dynamic equilibrium, we're obviously just getting torque of one sign, which we might as well call 'positive', regardless of its provenenace. And, when over-speeded beyond that homeostasis, that torque sign flips to negative.

But, rather than opening another three doors in an ever-branching spread of possibilities, there IS a narrower path of consistency that seems to run through this particular potential thicket:

- just consider an inertial torque of one sign, say, positive - from a mass being drawn inwards towards the center.

- the 'torque' is the mass's resistance to its angular deceleration. It doesn't 'want' to slow down, its angular momentum has nowhere to go, so it is transferred to the axis of rotation. So the force we feel is the radially-moving mass's momentum; its MoI times its angular velocity. You know all this already.

- but exactly the inverse relationship then applies when we attempt to over-speed an inwards drawn mass! It only wants to equalise a momentum difference relative to the rotor equal to its change in radius.. and no more or less!


- so we don't necessarily need to invoke outbound-masses, too - and thus some kind of speed-sensitive transmission switchover - in order to account for this alternating output torque regime in response to applied torques..


IOW, this RPM-hunting reactive torque we seek has a perfect, very simple, profile fit:

- it could be, consistently, at all normal operating ranges, rectifying a single phase of an inbound / outbound inertial torque - which could be of either sign.

So maybe the outer wheel housing only recieves torque from inbound masses, or outbound masses, while the opposite torque goes elewhere.

The second take-away point would be that slight change of focus i mentioned firstly above - we tend to think of our internal masses as being attached to the reference frame of the wheel body...

So we naturally adopt the main wheel as our reference frame, to which the moving masses are attached - which is the most obvious way to view things when we want the masses to move with the wheel, and vice versa. In a sense, we design into it, from our most unquestioned predicates, this wheel-centric reference frame. Stick stuff to wheel. Wheel make stuff move. Stuff make wheel move.

What i'm suggestsing here is swapping over our main reference frame to the radially-moving masses. It's no longer about the wheel, it's all about them, and their attempts to conserve angular momentum against a stacked deck.

The main article is these weights. The wheel - the peritrochium - is a peripheral attachment to these orbiting masses.

The weights aren't attached to the wheel... the wheel's attached to the weights. Minor detail, with potentially significant implications...

The wheel is just one of the things our masses can sink their inertial torques into. But there must also be something else...

...and presumably, this is where gravity comes into play.


TL;DR

- the simplest explanation for the reactive torque is a consistent inbound or outbound inertial torque; ie. as if only inbound inertial torques are conveyed to the wheel, but not outbound torques, or else vice versa - either resulting torque is very specifically momentum-dependent and conservative, the mass in question resisting both any further acceleration or deceleration beyond that due to its change in radius. This elegantly fits the profile of the reactive forces apparently powering Bessler's demonstrations.

- if the torque we feel on the axle is actually a radially-moving mass's resistance to changes in angular velocity, then instead of considering the masses as "attached to the wheel", with the wheel being our base reference frame, it would make more sense to switch our main FoR to that of the target acceleration curve.

By 'target acceleration curve' i refer to the fact that Bessler's wheels apparently hunted for a stable equilibrium velocity, and wanted to to go no faster or slower. If the driving forces are inertial as supposed here, then that 'sweet spot' corresponds to a specific change in MoI - a definite amount of mass cycling in and out through an unvarying range of radius, and thus settling into an equilibrium inbound vs outbound rate.

IOW, it is the preferential rate of this in-out bouncing (which could be a simple linear excursion, or else anything that varies MoI (radially-folding planar linkages or whatever)), that determines the stable operating range of the wheel itself, and as such, it would make more sense to adopt this specific inertial torque range as our baseline reference frame, that everything else, including the wheel body and axle, is attached to.