MT thoughts ;7)

[daxwc]

Yes, Fletcher I have seen the thread before and I agree that is how it works. I did not mean the whole wheel on 55 was the solution on time. One has to use a little imagination; the ring gear becomes the drum, the paddles become the slates of the drum and the ratchet is to get you thinking the weight rise in the opposite direction the wheel is turning. The three masses are on one side all together independent yet connected.

I did a build last year of a device that lifted (tried to lift) the weight in reverse of the direction it rotated. A single mechanism looked promising, but when I scaled it up I couldn’t get the same effect. It was months before I realised I changed the pulley position and it was actually pulling the wheel around before. I had eliminated a pulley high up back to the axle when I got more room. In the end the build would never work even if I put the pulley back up due to phasing problems, but it did give insight into raising a mass fast on a slow descent side because it actually adds torque, hence the need for a heavy flywheel. So the counter torque caused by the cam is offset by the torque needed to raise the mass a little.

[Fletcher]

At this point it is easy to see how those who apply Ockham's Razor diligently to the problem of internal lifting of lever-weights to raise the wheel CoM and the lws GPE, so that it will lead to excess torque, arrive at an introduced energy to the wheel. Either by fuel source and heat engine or by harnessed ambient force of temp or pressure. And thus whilst a Prime Mover may also be an OB system it also must be a separate entity to be coupled to MT's 44 and 48 to allow them to work.

What is absent in this discussion is the opinions of the vast majority of Gravity Only proponents as to whether the Prime Mover was indeed a separate entity that could be coupled to MT's 44 and 48 for example. Or whether any or many OOB systems were their own Prime Mover by artful arrangement of the mechanics.

Mine in Blue:

May as well get to the meat of the problem Fletcher ;)

1. are the different additional structures (also called the other application present) the Prime Mover(s) ?

Yes, in a way, the over- balance was what turned the wheel (last reaction); the Prime Mover (first cause) caused the over-balance.

Well, certainly in the cases of MT's 44 and 48 the Prime Mover is a separate entity bolted to the OOB system.

2. is the 'other required structures' to make it run just a simple tweak of the elevator concept so that the gearing of the delivery 'lift' will keep pace with the wheel, or something more substantial and separate ?

No, it is a complete overhaul in my opinion. Yet, like you I always go back thinking there is a work around of it.

I like the term overhaul. Yes, IMO it is a separate physical structural entity coupled to an OOB system. But I don't look for a workaround tho I think depending on the choice of OOB system it may be possible to combine the two entities into one application.

3. are there any different or competing ideas about how these elevator wheels could have the delivery speed increased to keep pace with the wheel ?

In my opinion you missed the point of the drawing if you are still stuck on the elevator.

Haven't missed the point at all dax. And I'm not stuck on the elevator. Just telling you what Bessler says about the problem. Bessler tells us in both MT's 44 and 48 that insufficient balls/spheres are carried by the elevator to the wheel. Not that the wheel must turn faster or anything like that. Simply that the gearing is wrong i.e. the effort and load are mismatched. He could have added gearing solutions to up the delivery speed of balls but he could never get it to self-sustain with just that mechanical change-out. He needed a Prime Mover addition to up the delivery rate by effectively reducing the load of the elevator weights in transit, as well as a gearing match-up.

From JC’s MT book & original translation:

No. 48. This is a round-weight invention, with a bucket conveyor. A, is a wheel over whose axle B, the bucket conveyor C, passes as it raises the balls, and ejects them into a chute at D. At E the balls fall onto the wheel, which ejects them back into the bucket conveyor at F.

Not enough balls are supplied by the bucket conveyor in this invention.

The principle is good, but the figure as it is will not give birth to any motion until completely different structures bless this marriage.

A marriage implies two people/objects/ideas. Mt 44 to Mt 50 is all about time. Realising you need to speed up a mass/weight to get any over-balance. Fast-slow; push-pull.

Yes, you need to speed something up as demonstrated by MT's 44 and 48. But IMO you actually need to introduce excess energy into the system, either by way of increased GPE/torque of weights via your Prime Mover structures acting on the OOB system, or you take momentum from the earth and give that momentum to the wheel OOB system via the Prime Mover actions.

This is of course assuming that we are talking Gravity Only systems. The first option produces energy from apparently no explainable source, while the second sounds somewhat familiar and possibly within the bounds of scientific reasoning. One sounds impossible, the other improbable. I wonder how Ockhma's Razor sorts this out or if it even can ?

[daxwc]

Wiki:

Ernst Mach formulated the stronger version of Occam's Razor into physics, which he called the Principle of Economy stating: "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses."[30]
This principle goes back at least as far as Aristotle, who wrote "Nature operates in the shortest way possible."[27] The idea of parsimony or simplicity in deciding between theories, though not the intent of the original expression of Occam's Razor, has been assimilated into our culture as the widespread layman's formulation that "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."[27]

Fletcher there are many variation of Occam’s Razor; neither do I know how you are applying it. Are you applying it to our clue solving also or are you applying completely it to the physics of the wheel solution itself?


Fletcher quotes:

At this point it is easy to see how those who apply Ockham's Razor diligently to the problem of internal lifting of lever-weights to raise the wheel CoM and the lws GPE, so that it will lead to excess torque, arrive at an introduced energy to the wheel. Either by fuel source and heat engine or by harnessed ambient force of temp or pressure.

Agreed

What is absent in this discussion is the opinions of the vast majority of Gravity Only proponents as to whether the Prime Mover was indeed a separate entity that could be coupled to MT's 44 and 48 for example. Or whether any or many OOB systems were their own Prime Mover by artful arrangement of the mechanics.

Start a poll they are likely to answer that, especially if they are thinking they will be flogged by the scientific inquisition. 8P

Haven't missed the point at all dax. And I'm not stuck on the elevator. Just telling you what Bessler says about the problem.

Can’t tell if I ticked you off or not, but it was not my intention. What I meant to say is he is trying to get you to come mental acceptance and maybe a vague visual concept of the solution.

Bessler tells us in both MT's 44 and 48 that insufficient balls/spheres are carried by the elevator to the wheel. Not that the wheel must turn faster or anything like that. Simply that the gearing is wrong i.e. the effort and load are mismatched. He could have added gearing solutions to up the delivery speed of balls but he could never get it to self-sustain with just that mechanical change-out. He needed a Prime Mover addition to up the delivery rate by effectively reducing the load of the elevator weights in transit, as well as a gearing match-up.

“He could have added gearing solutions to up the delivery speed of balls but he could never get it to self-sustain with just that mechanical change-out.� Would be my reply; gears still have the mechanical advantage’s disadvantage but that being said I have another design on free spheres that meet my definition of the prime-mover but doesn’t use an elevator (probably doesn’t work either but that is a different thing altogether).

He needed a Prime Mover addition to up the delivery rate by effectively reducing the load of the elevator weights in transit, as well as a gearing match-up.

I don’t know exactly what he meant by prime mover but he doesn’t say it is missing here either. He is saying “The principle is good, but the figure as it is will not give birth to any motion until completely different structures bless this marriage.� So if the prime mover was an application concept it would make it true also.

So I make a statement like the prime mover is a concept where the ball/spheres/weights never leave the second quarter of the wheel, but what is still driving the wheel? It runs is overbalance, can you see how that might be possible also?

This is of course assuming that we are talking Gravity Only systems. The first option produces energy from apparently no explainable source, while the second sounds somewhat familiar and possibly within the bounds of scientific reasoning. One sounds impossible, the other improbable. I wonder how Ockhma's Razor sorts this out or if it even can ?

I agree with the statement, but no scientific breakthrough ever happen before if men didn’t push the envelope on impossible and improbable.
So going back to Ocknma’s razor "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses." My senses tells me there is gravity, it is the scientific community that tells me it is always conservative.

I don’t stand on the shoulders of many; I stand on the grave of one.

Can we and are we using Ocknma’s razor to clue solving in MT?

[ovyyus]

My senses tells me there is gravity, it is the scientific community that tells me it is always conservative.

Your senses also tell you that the ground doesn't move and the sun does, yet you know better.

The scientific community report their observations and experiments (not held as secrets), which you're free to repeat and confirm (or otherwise) with your own observations and experiments. The conservative nature of gravity isn't derived from belief.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher there are many variation of Occam’s Razor; neither do I know how you are applying it.

Are you applying it to our clue solving also or are you applying completely it to the physics of the wheel solution itself?

So I make a statement like the prime mover is a concept where the ball/spheres/weights never leave the second quarter of the wheel, but what is still driving the wheel? It runs is overbalance, can you see how that might be possible also?

Can we and are we using Ocknma’s razor to clue solving in MT?

I'm not ticked off dax. I have a thick hide if not a thick head.

Besslers' wheels did certain tricks. The word trick is not meant to be dismissive or derisive, just a simple way to say they did what nobody else's can do.

I want to know what the physical principle was behind those tricks. There was a real mechanical physical principle.

To do that I am trying to compartmentalize and pare down the options, so that I can hopefully find the town he lived in, then the street, then the house, and finally the room.

To that end, we are confident that those tricks could be replicated with modern tech like batteries and solenoids. We probably could make a heat engine (as per Bill) that was an OOB system and engine in one. We think we might be able to use an environmental force to perhaps output work at levels similar to Bessler's wheels, but no one has been able to do it so far. It remains on the table as an option. No one has been able to use Gravity force alone (or inertia) to do the same tricks to date.

I am not an advocate for any solution other than one that can replicate the tricks. I'm not particularly interested in modern tech or even environmental forces etc to do that. Other than for curiosity sake. I do like the romantic notion that a Gravity Only solution exists, if only we can find the room it is hiding in.

So I have two avenues to find the street and house and room in the town called Gravity. I can explore what I have learned and experienced about gravity and try and find a physical principle in mechanics that has been overlooked. Probably something that is simple but we all almost instantly dismiss and move on. I have to set aside what I learned about the math of physics to keep an open mind.

And at the same time I can try to unravel the codes and ciphers and road markers left by Bessler in his works, particularly JC's MT. I said they were filled with Masonic and RC gravy so its a bit of a job getting to the sausages.

I hope that between us all we can unravel enough of Bessler's illustration, word, and number tricks, plus use our knowledge of physics and mechanics to get a bead on what HIS solution to his tricks was.

To that end, I am making the case that the Prime Mover at least for MT's 44 and 48 was a separate entity. If it was a separate entity for those two then it most likely was a separate entity for most OOB systems of various sorts.

Its job was to lift weights upwards to give extra torque to the OOB system as seen in MT's 13 and 15 (btw 13 and 15 are interchangeable i.e. the same device in principle because of the 3 and 5 top bar switcheroo, both requiring lifting at D). To do that it must itself move or change shape in some way (the motion). That process would be gravity driven and mean the Prime Mover would also lose GPE shape shifting. That morphing provided the push-pull forces to lift the OOB weights.

However, since the Prime Mover lost some GPE but gave GPE to the OOB system in spades, so that the whole of wheel self-sustained and did work, then, the Prime Mover repaid more than it cost plus substantial change.

So IMO we are looking for a mechanical arrangement for the Prime Mover which is a separate entity, that lifts weight by either push or pull forces, and itself loses some GPE, but bestows more E than its cost to the wheel.

Applying Ockham's Razor further at this point suggests to me that there is some unrecognised faculty of mechanics. Since Energy and the Work Energy Equivalence Principle are the currency for capacity to do Work, and KE is a derivative of velocity, then I am left with the suspicion that increasing a weights velocity beyond what 'g' can achieve is a key ingredient. However this would be observable as momentum increase in the wheel (the movement). So IMO while time is part of the equation it is velocity that is the driver, best guess at the moment.

So I agree that a wheel could run on overbalance if weights were lifted by the Prime Mover. That could also apply to weights remaining in one of the lower quarters as long as the lifting or speed enhancement was done there also. As for MT's 44 and 48 running the wheels faster achieves nothing at all. They need the gearing to be altered to match supply and demand. And then they would be only break-even. They need a further boost which is to assist speed of elevator etc which is provided by the Prime Mover IMO.

Now we all know not everyone's Ockham rationale is the same. But between us all we might eventually find some sausage at the bottom of the stew.

[daxwc]

The last few years I have just gone where I believe the clues have taken me, then try to derive a sensible outcome.
Bessler was a mathematician, yet how did he discover his perpetual motion machine it wasn’t with his pen and books:

It's true that nowadays in many places there are to be found so called
"Wheel-makers". Everyone can claim to be an inventor;
anyone who can do a bit of cobbling. Art and skill no longer count
for much, but the rewards are claimed willy nilly! The true
inventor must graft away endlessly, and get his hands sore! Only
then will he achieve anything worthwhile, as I did many years
ago, but unfortunately skill such as that of Orpheus, on his lyre of
old, is held in scant regard today. AP pg 257

God would feed me even if a thousand artists, through their
learning, should discover the secret of my work. But should they
fail, please don't let them blame me! And they have all failed,
despite much hard work - that much is true! Every single one of
them has had something in his favour - plenty of grit or plenty of
mathematical subtlety - but I'll spare you those details! It still
goes on - they chisel away at it till the day they drop down dead! AP pg 257

[daxwc]

I change that viewpoint because in DT he goes on to say his education was necessary. I guess his ego wouldn't let him be. 8P

Though some intelligent people from time to time questioned
this “mathematical consensus,� deeming it over-hasty and
suspect, their opinions were drowned by the weight of the
mathematical orthodoxy, and soon everyone laying any serious
claim to real mathematical achievement gave up, as it were with
one voice, the search for Perpetual Motion without further
discussion or scruple. DT pg 185

And so one can well judge how enormous was the astonishment
caused in all quarters when, about the 12th year of our present
century, it was publicly announced that another would-be
discovery of the said Perpetual Motion principle had been made;
that, through the grace of God, after such a tedious thousandyear-
long search, an (page 9) inventor was at hand who
possessed the complete solution to this much-discussed
problem. And there’s more – not only did he have the solution
to the abstract mathematical problem – long banished from the
court of the professional mathematicians – he had an actual
concrete realisation of the principle in the form of a working
model. DT 185

[Fletcher]

No, it was a dream attributable to God. He failed just like the rest of us till this one worked and he understood why, and why all the others had failed.

If he could understand why it worked (giving him credit for actually correctly analysing its modus operandi) - he says preponderance for the entire wheel etc - then if he has some analogue principle for the Prime Mover in MT etc that we can find, perhaps by finding patterns in codes and drawings, we should be able to also see some potential and deduce how to apply it, I would hope. IOW's also understand the physical principle behind the Prime Mover.

We're not all mathematicians who didn't have an original thought or must protect our tenure and status.

[ovyyus]

Bessler said his secret was easy to understand and Karl said a novice could understand and build the wheel after seeing inside it. As though no surprises were in store, like a would-be buyer might want to snatch back their money after seeing inside the wheel. My Ockham's Razor suggests that Bessler used a simple and efficient overbalanced system of weights lifted by an easily understood prime mover powered by a recognised source of real energy. Bessler's whole edifice is built upon clever exploitation of a real energy source and everything else is patter.

Or it could be something else :7)

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

No, it was a dream attributable to God. He failed just like the rest of us till this one worked and he understood why, and why all the others had failed.

Sounds like application problem 8P

"What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: "Now I understand!�" - Bessler

[Fletcher]

LOL .. of course both of you are right.

And your positions and the positions we all have have hardly shifted in how long ?

Because there has been no new information to add to the debate one way or another in decades.

With the MT codes and ciphers we have a chance to add to the information pool.

His Prime Mover is there or it is not. His codes lead somewhere or they do not. If it is there it will be sign posted. If his application is there it will also be sign posted. Whatever that application is.

It's in all our interests to take an active interest in the codes and ciphers of MT (if not AP etc) and the MT drawings. You just may have more information tomorrow than you had today.

.. soon I began to grind out a book full of all sorts of things, including designs for rotating wheels (Machinen Tractate). These incorporated various devices and pulleys that had occurred to me from time to time, including the notion that a flow of mercury could enable a wheel to rotate" – AP pg 265

[daxwc]

Ok, Fletcher I am game to change my mind set for this thread and look for a specific device. I have in the past looked for a variable lever such as in the cam/trigger. Where do you want to start?

Question Fletcher just curious; Oystein has never revealed to you his mechanism has he?

[daanopperman]

Hi Fletcher ,

I am not sure how to explain my thoughts , but here goes . In a OOB wheel

If a physical prime mover had 2 X amount of whatever energy it would yield , and we used 1 X of that energy to raise a weight to gain GPE , we would receive only 1X of energy out from the lifted weight once it had expended that GPE , there would be no gain if the wheel had increased rotational velocity . So with every revolution of the wheel , we would be back to square one for the prime mover to start a new lift .
To lift a weight , surely the prime mover will induce back torque on the wheel , if the latter was connected to and revolved with the wheel . In such a case , the prime mover would be the ppm , and a weighted wheel would be redundant .

UNLESS , your prime mover has a mover .

I am not a promoter of lifting weights to gain ob , there is nothing there to gain .

[Fletcher]

Thanks for your opinions daan .. I respect you are not a proponent of lifting weights to find excess torque. It's a common position among Gravity Only enthusiasts. Wishing to find asymmetric torque thru a cunning rearrangement of the mechanics mainly. That is what I call the closed loop path.

FWIW you can flip a lever-weight over horizontally around a pivot, like in MT20 for instance (it hasn't lost GPE), and still there is no extra torque in one direction to continue sector rotation. The wheel still settles to its position of lowest CoM (GPE). That's what I have found anyway.

So far the only way I could find excess torque to rotate beyond a sector was to actually physically lift a weight i.e. give a lw more GPE, and that took an investment of Work and energy. Be that on the descending side or the ascending side. That always results in excess torque in a direction but is rather mundane and unimaginative I guess.

And you are correct, there are back-torque issues to deal with. They don't help, tho they may not be a show stopper either. So a mechanical work-around would probably be required to negate them. That means balancing torques of simultaneously transitioning lws IMO.

So the theory of giving something like a lw excess GPE by doing Work on it means something like a Prime Mover has to do that lifting. Where the Prime Mover of itself gets its overunity from is the big question for the Gravity Only brigade who chose to investigate this route.

.........................

Ok, Fletcher I am game to change my mind set for this thread and look for a specific device. I have in the past looked for a variable lever such as in the cam/trigger. Where do you want to start?

You're doing a fine job on your Conjecture thread dax. Follow your nose and instinct and see where we end up, and with what. I have no preconceived ideas about that process, but maybe we will knock again on the door of MT41.

Question Fletcher just curious; Oystein has never revealed to you his mechanism has he?

No. I can categorically tell you that he has not shown me his mechanism. But you have hit the nail on the head. He has said publicly that he did find a mechanism in AP and MT. That it repeated over and over but sometimes in different proportions. The same pattern, the same mech ! So while it may be something like a variable lever that you seek it may not be something like a cam/trigger that you had in mind which is as you point out more of an application rather than a mech.

What he did say was that once the mech was found it was not so easy to see how to apply it in a Gravity Only scenario and as of a while ago he was still researching the correct application and context for the mech he found.

He did say that he could find it on the Toy Page with a shift one just one element. Now I suggest that you don't jump to conclusions about whole toys being shifted around. That was never said tho you might rightly or wrongly think it was implied. That is up to you.

ETA: I am paraphrasing Oystein here from my memory of his posts since about 2015, but I am pretty confident that they are an accurate portrayal.

[MrVibrating]

I'm convinced that the prime mover has to be a process, or rather the results of some process, as opposed to some principle that exists in a given instance of time. It has to be something spread out in time. But there'll be no 'instant advantage' type effect - drop x here, lift x+y there, type stuff.



Some of the most impenetrable illustrations are those where counter-forces are alluded to. The Kassel engravings, MT 47 which also seems to suggest vertical ambiguity... if we're looking to just the physical possibilities, a momentum asymmetry is our prime candidate. KE is speed-dependent, speed is relative because motion is relative, therefore KE is relative to a given FoR. That's our wildcard.

If you wanted to make energy you'd have to figure out how to capture and entrain counter-momentum, and so accelerate your reaction mass along with your accelerated mass, creating a divergent FoR and thus I/O energies.

It's not just that this is the only physical option, but Bessler himself said that "in a true PMM everything must, of necessity, go around together" - unambiguously nailing the exploit as an effective N3 break. He understood his quarry and cornered it, and so the most informative illustrations will contain clues dealing with counter-momentum.

We know CoM is inviolable in its own right, and that GPE symmetry is likewise immutable. But combine gravitational and inertial interactions together, at the same time in the same interaction, and the situation is no longer so black & white.

These must surely be the types of interactions to be looking for in any clues... where Bessler's arcane esoterics and basic physics must somehow meet in the middle.


Assume a GPE asymmetry, and you've already admitted your excess energy; it's there, physically manifest and ready to perform work, the moment you apply whatever the exploit.

But assume a momentum asymmetry and the immediate advantage is not so apparent. An instant energy asymmetry is not necessarily produced. We'd simply have cultured the environment under which an energy asymmetry may thus evolve, over time and successive interaction cycles..

I believe all indications are that the prime mover has to be a gravity-assisted momentum asymmetry.

Lifting weights is trivial if you already have excess KE, and excess KE is trivial if the energy cost of momentum is isolated from the V^2 multiplier... ie. in actuality an input deficit, rather than an output 'excess'.

My tuppence worth..