Generating more meaningful debate

[john.smith]

@John Collins,
What everyone might have overlooked and is what I just thought of is Mt 138 - 141. The spinning top is what I am referring to.
This is because Bessler said;
Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (low or narrow cylinder) which resembles a grindstone. This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine.
What happens when that top spins ? It can retract a line. And if it doesn't spin but the wheel does around it ? It retracts a line. And at the same time it is doing work it does not require any energy to do it.
As for the 2 guys with sledge hammers ? The levers lifting the top weight only.
This is when work (W + MD) is done.

[cloud camper]

We start with a weights-wise asymmetric overbalanced wheel which can make 360 degrees turn by pre-defined path and special arrangement of weights motion, providing continuous net positive torque, to complete resetting of weights starting positions.

The asymmetry is maintained and can be repeated.

I firmly believe that could be possible.

Raj, that being said ...

... Cloud Camper is stating the mathematical position/doctrine about a Perpetuum Mobile. Physics is written in the language of Math. So he says that ...

I believe you need to show how you are breaking mathematical symmetry with your idea.

i.e. show in the Math or by working model where the extra energy is coming from to cause continuous rotation once started, AND do Work.

The Math says its not possible to get extra energy from a conservative field of gravity and for the internal weights to reset themselves so that after any 360 degs of rotation the internal format looks the same as start conditions. That is the symmetry he is talking about and the Math is circular between linear and rotational equations and the Work Energy Equivalence Principle (WEEP) making it very difficult (if not impossible) to cull a prospect from the formulas that might give a symmetry break to exploit for the task. Emmy Noether summarized it. She did in part I think because it is human nature to find pattern in things (which she did admirably) and because we tend to like order and not chaos and so we put our 'ducks in a row' or 'stack our pennys'. No different for Math, with familiarity we want order and self-referncing if possible.

Cloud Camper wraps it up neatly by paraphrasing Stevin's Principle ...

Basically the laws of symmetry say that if your wheel looks identically the same after a 360 degree rotation, then symmetry has not been violated and no energy gain is possible.

Essentially this means that every component of your device follows a closed loop path thru a 360 degree rotation of the wheel and returns to it's start position, there is no possible gain as every component has returned to its original PE (mass x gravity x height) in a static gravitational field.

That being said ... then your Logical Statement (IF proven to be TRUE) comes to the fore. Also worth repeating.

We start with a weights-wise asymmetric overbalanced wheel which can make 360 degrees turn by pre-defined path and special arrangement of weights motion, providing continuous net positive torque, to complete resetting of weights starting positions.

The asymmetry is maintained and can be repeated.

Vis-a-vis ... IF a Perptuum Mobile that uses gravity force ONLY can be proved to exist then your logical Statement is proved TRUE. And therefore Stevin's Principle (and disproof of the impossibility of PM) is proved FALSE. And therefore the Laws of Symmetry have been violated even though "every component has been returned to its original PE" and "every component of your device follows a closed loop path thru a 360 degree rotation of the wheel and returns to it's start position."

IF a Perpetuum Mobile (wheel) can be demonstrated to be TRUE (it currently can't be proved by available Math) then since it is a rotating machine (using Besslers' examples) then Stevin's Principle is instantly dismissed as wrong.

As I said a day or two ago if the average radius of internal shifting masses is constant over time, neither increasing or decreasing (re: Stevin), then the Math available to analyse it is also wrong OR incomplete.

There is however another alternative. If Stevin's or CC's assumptions about positional change and original PE's and closed loop paths is demonstrated to be TRUE for a TRUE Perpetuum Mobile (as Bessler's seemed to be) then we are left with only ONE logical alternative that could thereby cause asymmetric torque in one direction for a wheel format.

I wonder if you can see what it is ?

The one aspect that I believe gives us hope that there might be a solution is that all the symmetry and conservation laws were formulated on the assumption that mechanical operations are conducted in a uniformly static unchanging gravitational field.

There are only two real forces that can be utilized in a wheel design - gravity and CP (the inward pulling force that causes a mass to orbit a fixed center point, called Centripetal Force). The fictitious force CF cannot be used as it does not exist and is not a real force.

But CP (the center seeking force) is real and can be varied. If it were possible to make the descending weights heavier using CP and then eliminate the effects of CP for the ascending side we might then create the required assymetry.

In this scheme we are not using gravity to create energy as it is static and conservative, we are using CP which is dynamic and variable.

Of course this idea is not new and no one has achieved results with this idea either.

The one concept that I keep coming back to is impacts - prominently displayed in MT138-141 as the heart of the WORKING solution. Normally impacts are a loss mechanism. But could there be a type of impact that is stronger than normal? What about an impact occurring under strong CP effects?

Just some thoughts!

[Fletcher]

... But CP (the center seeking force) is real and can be varied. If it were possible to make the descending weights heavier using CP and then eliminate the effects of CP for the ascending side we might then create the required asymmetry.

In this scheme we are not using gravity to create energy as it is static and conservative, we are using CP which is dynamic and variable.

Of course this idea is not new and no one has achieved results with this idea either.

The one concept that I keep coming back to is impacts - prominently displayed in MT138-141 as the heart of the WORKING solution. Normally impacts are a loss mechanism. But could there be a type of impact that is stronger than normal? What about an impact occurring under strong CP effects?

Just some thoughts!

Hi CC .. Yes, many of us have gone down that Cp rabbit hole, it does seem a logical direction to look. Not to say there isn't a white rabbit down there somewhere but I for one could never make it work out.

But your main point I think is about the use of harnessing impacts (also extensively looked at I think), the augmentation of impacts particularly, from your comments above. Yes, they are always loss inducing system energy wise. So that's not a good feature of impacts but hey who cares if we end up with enough torque asymmetry to more than compensate for those losses. A few energy losses along the way isn't going to worry anyone.

But here I point you to Bessler himself in MT. But before I do that you may remember that in his earlier one-direction wheels he used felt (shock and sound absorber ?) between his internal impacting parts (which were a necessary part of the internal actions). Later he dispensed with the felt. Here people wonder about the value of impacts verses impulse but neither is imperative IMO.

Back to MT - precisely MT52 (5Z)

.. I will only say the following: no wheel is moved through strong blows, for paddles would sooner dash it into 1000 pieces, and it would be utterly destroyed with bullets, as is sufficiently known.

- Johann Bessler

And then he shows a paddle wheel in MT55 where the commentary stops.

It seems he steers us clear of strong impacts, but I at least assume that impacts of some sort are a necessary evil (byproduct) for his brand of PM mechanics.

[Sam Peppiatt]

agor95,

Love your post 10-11-17 and sim. Can't get enough of it-------------

I've tried this meany times with both compression springs and tension springs.
I could never get it to work because the two springs tend to keep the rod centered. I could never get quite enough shift.

I don't think centrifugal force or forces will help either, because they would hold or tend to keep the rod out to which ever spring is the weakest or which ever weight is a bit farther out from the center.

This is what I did: I tried it with two sliders, (rods), and just two springs. I positioned the rods, (wheel), to form an "X" with the two springs down. Then let go of it. It took off from gravity alone came up to some speed then slowed down and stopped after 270 degrees of rotation.

I think this is proof that when the lower spring is lifting the upper one has to be released, so that the rod(s) can shift far enough to produce rotation. But, must admit, I don't know to do it------------

Anyway thanks for putting up the SIM, Sam

[Grimer]

To me, the most meaningful area for debate concerns the energy source, ie. the symmetry break.

In all of classical mechanics, there is only one, single, exploit capable of generating both excess energy and momentum. It is the only form of interaction possible from which a thermodynamic gain (or loss) can be calculated; the only tangible mathematical solution that can even be contemplated realistically.

Gravity and mass are constant, and any closed-loop trajectory through static fields yields zero net energy, therefore there is no form of leverage, whether angular or linear or any combination, that can trade force for excess displacement or vice versa; in a vertical rotating system all cycling weights must travel equal distance up as down, and so gravitational input and output energies can only ever be equal.

There is simply nothing you can do with these simple, fundamental maths, to create or destroy energy - gravitational potential energy is equal to mass times gravity times height, regardless of time, because neither gravity, mass or distance (ie. space itself) change over time - they're all static fields..

And Bessler himself quite cleary refutes any such possibility as a futile endeavour.

However it is equally clear that his wheels - especially the one-way wheels - were perpetually over-balancing. The only way a statorless vertical wheel can remain under static torque is if that force was due to an OB weight; releasing the wheel to freely rotate thus allowed this weight to get lower, outputting its GPE; the fact that the wheels had no stator against which to apply torque, leaves an output of GPE as the only real option.

Yet there is no way this output GPE can itself be directly converted back into equal input GPE, much less an excess - indeed, as noted above, since his wheels immediately spun up to speed, we can be certain that most of this output GPE is in fact converted straight into rotational kinetic energy (RKE), so there is definitely no direct conversion of output GPE back into input GPE, as by any conventional form of leverage..

Yet, as also noted above, the GPE must nonetheless be restored; if weights keep falling then they must also be rising at some point..


Therefore, the trick must involve conversion of RKE, or else some component or derivative of it, back into GPE; in short, the symmetry break has to involve processes integral to the generation and management of RKE interactions. Specifically, we know we have this initial conversion of GPE to RKE, and then a conversion of RKE back into GPE; so the opportunity for gain must arise at some stage during this process of conversion to RKE, or re-conversion back into GPE..
...

This makes good sense to me.

The centre of mass of a set 360° pendulums falling one after the other at equal time intervals is at the apogee of the circle whereas the centre of mass of a rotating wheel is at the axle.

This means there is a difference in gravitational potential between the two systems.The set of 360° pendulums has the higher gravitational potential than a concentric rotating wheel.

A falling pendulum has 3rd derivative energy, aka Yank energy or Force x Time energy. This excess potential energy can be used to increase the angular momentum of the rotating wheel. Some can be fed back into the pendulum to enable it to pass its apogee and repeat the cycle.

[cloud camper]

Welcome back Frank!

[agor95]

@All

My supporting web site has been updated with wheel 1g
You should see some text near the end.

Just Reload Frame and click on 'Mouse Click Please'.

Sam has first viewing as the idea of bouncing the end masses of the boards.
I was only thinking the boards bend; so they do not break.

ME also pointed out the mass goes over the 1g plus before it gets to the rim.

So by using the bounce you could stop the masses being pinned to the rim.

So far all these illustrations have symmetry.

That can be changed by introducing gravity and hub ratchets.

I see the spring's design is an issue for many.

That is were MT138 comes in as a flat spring component.
Also with none proportional characteristics (non Hooke's Law).

P.S. Welcome back Grimer

[Grimer]

Welcome back Frank!

Thanks, cloud and agor. I'd been taking a long summer break. :-)

[AB Hammer]

agor95

If I am reading you correct? you are wanting to use leaf springs like a spring board?


Also welcome back Frank

[agor95]

@AB

The spring between the hub to the end mass is leaf spring like in character.

The end mass hitting the rim boards is a normal compression spring like in character.

The process is to define the mass path.

Then define the MT138 based leaf spring characteristic to assist the mass path.

The concept is to start a build-up of rotation towards a full rotation device.

Starting from wheel 1h to wheel 1v supplying the build up rotation.

We progress to the mass path seen in wheel 1e towards a wheel 1g movement.

P.S. Both these illustration need slight updates for gravity etc.
This would change them from symmetrical to asymmetrical movement.

Hope this helps

[AB Hammer]

agor95

When you build it. I can help you out with needed leaf springs designed as you need them.
I am starting to cross train to blade work and will have a lot of spring scrap that should be big enough for your needs.

Alan

[agor95]

@AB

Thanks you for the offer and when the analysis is up to engineering drawing stage. Then fabrication would be next in the list.

However I would like to think others will be a head of me by then.

P.S. if you are in England these events happen yearly

Armer
TORM, Coventry
17th -19th March
The Original Re-enactors Market

100 members battle/bash it out.
Tewkesbury, Gloucs
8th and 9th July
Medieval Festival Weekend Commemorating the Battle of Tewksbury 1471.

Regards

[agor95]

@All

Just a thought; has anyone created an elastic rope which acted like a leaf spring?

[john.smith]

@agor95,
a bungee chord.

[agor95]

A graduated bungee chord multi-threaded version.

Bessler could have used the scissor jack in his time with springs from each joint.

If the concept I have illustrated is used then you want the spring b. chord could be slack when the bar is centred.

The b. chord are from the end mass to hub on both sides.

Based on other members tests a normal spring are either too strong or too weak.

That is too strong at the horizontal phase and too weak at the rim bounce stage.

You need to have the pull back force on the mass at the correct time and place.