MT thoughts ;7)

[MrVibrating]

Well Fletcher MT 113 definitely wasn’t a MT mistake.

He purposely rotated the drawing upside down. What is D on MT 111, it almost looks like in the middle the same as MT 13.

Is the whole page now upside down?

I never felt MT113 was a mistake. For starters the number boxes go top -> bottom -> top -> bottom on that page of 4.

And now that you mention it the thing in MT111 does look like the artificial horizon (stator) in MT13 with the D above it. I just dismissed that strange addition as representing clock hands i.e. a clock driven by B's PM principle. But of course if as in MT13 someone were to lift the lw up at D like lightening then so could this 'clock' PM device run itself with his principle I guess.

Is the whole page upside down ? I don't think so because the feet on the other 3 pieces are at the bottom where they should be. For instance MT111 has a round end which couldn't be the bottom.

However there must be purpose behind having MT113 upside down or rotated 180 degrees ? And I think that is to highlight the problem of lifting weights (or lws) to gain GPE. The nod to MT13 (113 -100 = 13) you found also suggests that is the ultimate aim and principle behind B's PM principle.

Remember the old nugget of "Weights gained force from their own swinging (or movement)". Was that in AP and do you have the exact quote dax ? The wiki page clues doesn't have a page or book reference.

And I want to highlight these old nuggets as well.

.. one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound - what if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application ? Then people would say: 'Now I understand!' – AP pg 342

I don't want to go into the details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused to rise. You can't comprehend these matters, or see how true craftsmanship can rise above innate lowly tendencies (as does a weight above the point of application of a lever)" – AP pg 357

While statements by B should not be taken in isolation and the context is important there are other statements by him that point in the direction we are discussing, IMO. FWIW I don't believe B is strictly talking about breaking the law of levers per se, because he uses the word 'suddenly' to inspire a different thought of acceleration perhaps.

In light of my latest results, if we were to consider only momenta, rather than energy, then a 1 pound weight can output more momentum than is required to raise more than 1 pound.. not from an excess output of momentum from the former, but due to a deficit of input momentum to the latter.


Similarly, with regards to how quickly a weight is raised; this has no effect of course upon GPE, but if the lift is accelerated by an inertial torque (adding velocity without adding momentum), then the 'momentum efficiency' of the left is speed-dependent - the faster we can accelerate the lift with a momentum-conserving inertial torque, the less momentum is lost to gravity, and so the greater its comparative output when falling at the 9.81 p/s base rate, per Galileo's principle (the ambient or 'passive' momentum/time delta is not dependent on the system's ratio of gravitating to non-gravitating mass).


Likewise, the excess potential to perform work is derived directly from the masses' motion - accumulated reactionless momentum is simply worth more energy than has been paid for it.

Continuing that theme, perhaps MT's various allusions to turning systems upside-down hints at some benefit to momentum gains, in the first instance, over any direct GPE advantage.

I've also noted elsewhere that the three Kassel engravings also include deliberate 'mistakes' in the form of various occlusion errors (ie. intentionally confused background / foreground layers), causing up / down ambiguities and inconsistencies in the transmission systems connecting the wheels to the applied loads - especially the stampers, but also the water screw..

I'm convinced that if we just turn our attentions from the 'evil root' of energy asymmetries, to humble matters of prospective momentum asymmetries instead, we'll finally have our horse fore of cart, 'shunning superstitions' of inviolable symmetries, and more of the mechanical mysteries of OU - as well as B's cryptic clues - will start to make sense..

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

I never felt MT113 was a mistake. For starters the number boxes go top -> bottom -> top -> bottom on that page of 4.

Yes odd about the number boxes. I wonder if they were carved as individual stamps or carved on the same stamp?

It doesn’t look like the pencil numbers have been erased and renumbered on this MT. Hmmm… I wonder if it is a hint towards a number sequence. You need at least 3 numbers to start a sequence and four to really prove it.
https://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/20 ... uzzle-205/

Notice two of the drawings have the pencilled in X.

[daxwc]

MrVibrating:

In light of my latest results, if we were to consider only momenta, rather than energy, then a 1 pound weight can output more momentum than is required to raise more than 1 pound.. not from an excess output of momentum from the former, but due to a deficit of input momentum to the latter.

Similarly, with regards to how quickly a weight is raised; this has no effect of course upon GPE, but if the lift is accelerated by an inertial torque (adding velocity without adding momentum), then the 'momentum efficiency' of the left is speed-dependent - the faster we can accelerate the lift with a momentum-conserving inertial torque, the less momentum is lost to gravity, and so the greater its comparative output when falling at the 9.81 p/s base rate, per Galileo's principle (the ambient or 'passive' momentum/time delta is not dependent on the amount of gravitating mass, nor the system's ratio of gravitating to non-gravitating mass).

This is what I have been trying to say; glad there is someone to finally to head the train.
Notice a weightlifter, if he jerks the weight he can lift more than a steady slow lift. There has to be an asymmetry between time, momentum, moment of inertia and GPE.

[daxwc]

110 - labels AABCD with 2 straight A’s.
111 - labels AABCD with 1 straight A and 1 bent A.
112 - labels ABBCD with 1 straight A.
113 – labels ABCD with 1 bent A

[daxwc]

I think due to the smudge mark on the top right-hand side of MT 112 that they were all individual prints.

Notice the number blocks almost looked scratched out.

Why would he draw one ball in MT 112; it looks so out of place.

[MrVibrating]

MrVibrating:

In light of my latest results, if we were to consider only momenta, rather than energy, then a 1 pound weight can output more momentum than is required to raise more than 1 pound.. not from an excess output of momentum from the former, but due to a deficit of input momentum to the latter.

Similarly, with regards to how quickly a weight is raised; this has no effect of course upon GPE, but if the lift is accelerated by an inertial torque (adding velocity without adding momentum), then the 'momentum efficiency' of the left is speed-dependent - the faster we can accelerate the lift with a momentum-conserving inertial torque, the less momentum is lost to gravity, and so the greater its comparative output when falling at the 9.81 p/s base rate, per Galileo's principle (the ambient or 'passive' momentum/time delta is not dependent on the amount of gravitating mass, nor the system's ratio of gravitating to non-gravitating mass).

This is what I have been trying to say; glad there is someone to finally to head the train.
Notice a weightlifter, if he jerks the weight he can lift more than a steady slow lift. There has to be an asymmetry between time, momentum, moment of inertia and GPE.

Eeh, appreciate the nod however in the specific case of using inertial torque to accelerate the lift, we get an increased height without adding any momentum; the same amount of momentum that would carry a mass up to 1 meter, could be boosted with an inertial torque to get it up to 1.25 meters: however any other means of increasing the lift speed necessarily involves adding more momentum to the system, equal to the extra amount that will be recouped when dropping from that increased height.

So when the weight lifter or linear actuator or whatever increases the lift speed, they're also increasing the system momentum, in direct and equal proportion to the standard momentum / height symmetry.

What i'm trying to say is that a given GPE - a given mass at a given height - has a corresponding, and usually-conserved, momentum, in precisely the same manner that it has a corresponding and equal KE when so converted.

And that by applying inertial torques specifically - which cause acceleration precisely because they don't add momentum - we can break that symmetry between the GPE and its corresponding quotient of momentum.


We can do this in either direction - gaining momentum from gravity, or equally, sinking momentum into it.

In short, gravitational interactions are usually symmetrical between input and output, with respect to both energy and momentum. But the singular nature of inertial torques from varying MoI on the fly allows us to break that momentum / height symmetry.

The reason we're able to break it is because it isn't really a momentum / height symmetry, so much as a momentum / time symmetry; gravity is a uniform acceleration hence a given drop - or equally, an upwards flight against it - has a default rate of change of momentum of 9.81 p / second per kg of gravitating mass. The relative height that 1 second period spans (ie. in relation to the ground, say) is incidental to its absolute period; at our human scales it's a 9.81 m/s^2 acceleration regardless of which floor of a tower block we're on.

Hence if we accelerate or decelerate upwards or downwards at a different rate to the ambient change in momentum / time, we cover the same distance in either more or less time, and hence more or less time in flight results in more or less change in momentum per unit distance.

It's a subtle game, and not obvious till it 'clicks'... but apologies if i'm not explaining it very well - it's still sinking in for me too..

[daxwc]

Yes, it wasn’t very good analogy to your specific case. I was just trying to point out asymmetry in time between the formulas, which leads to a different output of work done. Maybe I am wrong.

[Fletcher]

Notice a weightlifter, if he jerks the weight he can lift more than a steady slow lift. There has to be an asymmetry between time, momentum, moment of inertia and GPE.

I've been looking into the time variable also, thru Impulse (J), as a potential way to break symmetry and gain GPE. In many ways a similar metaphor to your weightlifter example dax .. the work done is technically the same for the weightlifter whether fast or slow lifting but a slow lift can't get the same Load to the same height as a fast lift.

So far, by hacking the sim with a un-described 'black box' technology' that bipasses an actual mech, I've been able to get a twofold increase in GPE. Yes, you read that right. Nearly 2 times more mass height GPE Output than Input cost in Joules. It seems a kosher result but I won't be convinced until I have an actual physical mech (in sim world) intervention that gives the same result.

When I try to use an actual simmed mechanism things get erratic which causes me to suspect the program is intervening or I'm not understanding something. I am trying to nail it down.

While I have been playing with that I've been running thru the Kinematics Equations and Dynamic Equations to find the symmetry loophole, if one exists.

Kinematics of course only relate to either a constant velocity or constant acceleration so aren't much good for cases where acceleration is variable which I need for a full transfer of momentum possibility.

Anyways, trying to reconcile Work ( f x s (distance) ) with Impulse ( f x t ). Yes, I know one relates to v^2 and the other to v so I may be on a hiding to nothing trying to roll thru the math.

[nebollinger]

After many failed attempts at wheels I felt that what is really needed is a way to shift the center of gravity outwards from the axle and then inwards toward the axle to reset the device for another cycle. So I experimented with the following idea which uses gravity to set and reset two weights so rotation is made.


With 2 weights pivoted on a lever,
1 small and at a greater distance from the pivot
and 1 larger and at a shorter distance from the pivot such
that the smaller leveraged weight would lift the larger
weight away from the wheel's axle and shift the center of
gravity away from the axle. The pivot should not be in
a straight line with the two weights so it will want to
tilt in one direction.

The real trick is will it reset itself? remember
upside down at 180 degrees reverses everything.
So what lifted the larger weight will again lift the
larger weight but this time bring it closer to the wheel's
axle because everything is reversed.
And to prevent being bottom heavy I had it tilted
into the direction of rotation so the shift started at
about 11 o'clock and reset at about 5 o'clock.


A stop is also needed so it will not go beyond its desired range.

When I first did this a year or so ago it did rotate but only about
90 degrees and the other weights added mass that had to be
over come. So I thought that if it got started it might keep going.

If anyone is interested I can make a photo. But I thought the text
idea might stimulate others to enhance the idea.

I thought a simulation might show more but I don't have that skill.

Norman

[Fletcher]

.. While I have been playing with that I've been running thru the Kinematics Equations and Dynamic Equations to find the symmetry loophole, if one exists.

Kinematics of course only relate to either a constant velocity or constant acceleration so aren't much good for cases where acceleration is variable which I need for a full transfer of momentum possibility.

Anyways, trying to reconcile Work ( f x s (distance) ) with Impulse ( f x t ). Yes, I know one relates to v^2 and the other to v so I may be on a hiding to nothing trying to roll thru the math.

Norman's post reminded me to update. I will be away for a while in about 10 days time. I am busy preparing for that trip etc etc. Consequently I don't want to start a new thread to discuss the Impulse idea until I'm back and can devote some time to the discussion that will probably arise. I have to build a platform of posts to provide a foundation first anyway so that we are all on the same page, and that alone takes time I don't have right now. While away I will continue to examine the idea to see if it has legit potential or whether I'm whistling dixie. Usually I find the mistake eventually.

FWIW for constant acceleration cases like a cube being accelerated from stop at say 'g' (rounded to 10 for ease of math) then we can use the Kinematic Equations to find any missing quantity (SUVAT). And we can use the Dynamic Equations of f=ma and f x t = mv and f x s = m1/2v^ to derive momentum (p) and TKE/GPE.

To reconcile f x t to f x s to isolate and compare s and t we can rearrange equations by removing f .. i.e. s = 1/2 a t^2 and t = sqrt( 2 s / a ). Nothing too special there. For s to equal t (in magnitude) .. a = 2 t / ( t^2 ) which for t = 0.5 secs equals an acceleration of 4 m/s^2.

Impulse is change in momentum (p) signified by J. .. If f = ma => f x t = m a t => f t (J) = m v ( where a t = v ). Therefore f1 t2 = f2 t1 giving a consistent mv quotient for the above cube example. This is similar in mv terms to the similar expression used in the Work Energy Equivalence Principle where f1 s2 = f2 s1 except it uses t instead of s (displacement). N.B. Impulse by time must also have a physical displacement. This is where I am looking for the boogeyman for those interested, which won't be many I suspect.

[MrVibrating]

You don't need a simulation to test this idea - you already have a universal test rig for quickly checking any potential gravity wheel, no matter what arrangements of levers, springs, pulleys, gears, pendulums, rails, ramps, ratchets, or whatever mechanisms it requires.

Simply multiply the amount of weight by the height it traverses, and the force of gravity. Whatever units you use and whatever number you arrive at, you now have both the input energy, and the output energy!

For example, suppose you have 1 kg of weight that can move up and down, and it does so over a height of 1 meter: gravity is 9.81 Newtons so we just multiply 1 * 1 * 9.81 = 9.81 Joules! So in this instance, your input energy is -9.81 J, whereas your output energy is 9.81 J. Since -9.81 + 9.81 = 0, that is the net energy of your system, and precisely how much work it can perform.

None of the gubbins you stick inside your wheel can ever have any impact at all on this balance. None of them will change the amount of weight that has to travel up and down, nor the height it has to travel up and down, nor the strength of gravity. All forms of leverage and power conversion merely trade force for height; any exception is magical thinking.

The specific details of any putative gravity wheel are utterly irrelevant; all that matters is that the anticipated form of input energy is gravity times weight times height, and that the output energy (including the hoped-for energy gain) is also constituted of these exact same fields.

All gravity wheel attempts are utterly identical - there's simply no possibility of a 'unique' or 'novel' gravity wheel design. Because whatever goes on inside the wheel is irrelevant; there is no energy reservoir outside the wheel! At least, not within the blinkered constraints of its proffered energy terms - if gravity, mass and height are constant, then so is their product, regardless of ascent or descent.


The very notion of such a prospect is simply a brain virus. Like the parasite that causes a moth to suicide in water to complete its larval stage, or the fungus that compels a dying locust to climb to the highest point it can reach to favour its spore dispersal, the gravity-wheel virus commandeers its host to expend its resources and energy to propagate itself, by beguiling them with the illusion that the contents of the wheel could have any bearing whatsoever on the balance of input to output gravity-times-weight-times-height.

But we can prime our immune responses by following the simple rule - ask what is the form of input energy, and what is the form of output energy? If the prospective answer to both is gravity times weight times height (commonly expressed in terms of gravity * mass * height or GMH), then we instantly know with complete certainty that the wheel contents are irrelevant, a pointless distraction, an inconsequential brain fart.

Some, tragically, can't stand the taste of this medicine, and for them the infection can become chronic or even terminal. Bessler was a doctor and understood this. He did not succeed through pathological science!

Output and input energies for a closed-loop interaction can only be unequal when there is a time-dependent variable in one or other of those energy terms. Neither G, M or H are time-dependent, or, thus, speed-dependent, therefore GMH interactions are by definition a cul de sac. The impossibility of an input/output energy asymmetry is written into the very predicates of the proposition..

An "over unity" or "under-unity" result implies that the input and output energy fields have different dependent variables, at least one (or more) of which must be time-dependent. So if your input energy has the form GMH, then the form of output energy must be something else - some other, purely classical, derivation of energy.


To be perfectly honest, you would find far greater capital in considering a long list of differing energy terms, trying to pick'n'mix interesting potential pairings, than trawling through catalogues of mechanisms and their behaviours.

But if you're trying to generate an asymmetry between input and output energies of a gravitational interaction then you have already failed. You're trying to build a water wheel on Lake Placid. It has no energy source. Nothing you build into the wheel is going to change that. You're re-arranging wet kindling, for a type of fire that doesn't exist. Rocks don't burn. A closed loop trajectory through static fields, by definition, yields zero net energy. No ifs. No buts. It's just mindless squander. The antithesis of rational, or even truly committed, examination.

There is a solution... but a gravitational energy asymmetry is categorically not it.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi MrVibrating,
your thoughts are right, everything is constant inside the wheel.
Mass -> is constant
High -> is constant
Gravity -> is constant
but what we can change is the momentum when we move weights sidewards.

But we must allow gravity to move the weights. This is not possible with a fix axle. Remember the equations e=m*c*c and e=1/2*m*v*v
Both are valid. But this implies that you have eleminated half the enery to the ground where you are standing.

Doing the same on a swing you will get the full energy. So the movement inside the wheel must be an indirect move to power the outside seen wheel.

If you attack your energy source the system will stop very soon.
Therefore I constructed the roto device. The energy of the roto carrier is after the start constant, repulsive. And only the roto carrier is driving the outer wheel. And make it clear, not the impact is driving the outer wheel. The impact of the octogon is only to re-arange the rolling cylinders on the second layer of the oscillation.

[Art]

Mr V --"A closed loop trajectory through static fields, by definition, yields zero net energy. No ifs. No buts. It's just mindless squander. The antithesis of rational, or even truly committed, examination. "

-----

But in a rotating system everything that is rotating sees every field , including the gravitational field , as non static in relation to the axis of rotation ! Possible exception is probably the centripetal /centrifugal field ? :)

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Art,

But in a rotating system everything that is rotating sees every field , including the gravitational field , as non static in relation to the axis of rotation ! Possible exception is probably the centripetal /centrifugal field ? :)

Yes, and therefore the axle in my system is loose. Swinging with a variable turning point. A hola hoop works in every direction. It is a variation of the distance to the turning ring and the axle. Here you have also a 2 stage oscillation. swinging of the mass and swinging of the axle.

[nebollinger]

Here is a drawing of the concept in previous post.
The wheel is not drawn but the axle is shown. At 11 o'clock
the small mass will drop and lift the larger mass causing unbalance and a CG shift upwards and thus rotation. Then on the bottom you see the reset
of the CG back to where it is balanced.

Most wheels have the Keeling effect - bottom heavy but this will
gravity set and unbalance the CG and then gravity reset to balanced
CG.

And you can cascade this with another CG lifter so that you get even more
power..

So as with Bessler give it a push and it should rotate itself.

Norman