One for sure MT number
Moderator: scott
One for sure MT number
Consider that the working wheel design was left by Bessler in the form of a series of MT as he indicates. If you had to pick one MT that you are sure he used what MT number would that be?
What goes around, comes around.
re: One for sure MT number
The principle hidden in MT21.
silent
silent
re: One for sure MT number
If I had to pick one .. MT 11 .. indicative but not used as drawn, imo.
-
Wubbly
- Aficionado
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
- Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
- Contact:
re: One for sure MT number
MT137 ... because I like the geometry of it.
re: One for sure MT number
I would say 135. It hows no principle except how to overlap mechanisms.
My favourite will always be MT24 though.
My favourite will always be MT24 though.
re: One for sure MT number
Toys page.
re: One for sure MT number
MT13 with minor changes.
I finally started thinking outside of the box, only to find myself in a larger box.
-
Georg Künstler
- Devotee
- Posts: 1747
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:22 pm
- Location: Speyer, Germany
- Contact:
re: One for sure MT number
none of them,
the MT's are containing always a part of the construction,
the second part is missing.
The answer is written in the poem.
the MT's are containing always a part of the construction,
the second part is missing.
The answer is written in the poem.
Best regards
Georg
Georg
re: One for sure MT number
MT 14
Because Bessler wrote it can and may be used..
Best
ØR
Because Bessler wrote it can and may be used..
Best
ØR
www.orffyreuscodes.com
The truth is stranger than fiction
The truth is stranger than fiction
Re: re: One for sure MT number
That is a good choice.ovyyus wrote:Toys page.
Regards
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
It's the 'reveal', and the only MT that shows an interaction distributed over more than one cycle, ie. 'running'.
It's the only MT that shows an energy gain: A series of 5 asymmetric interactions, each encompassing two torques in one angular direction, for a single one going back the other way.
The top, single vertical bar on 'A' with a T-shape represents an initial input torque (think of the 'T' as a handle).
The skewed 'V' shape atop 'B' indicates a left-to-right bias for the resulting torque / momentum distributions, ie. a CW or CCW bias.
Each single vertical bar thereafter is the accumulating leftover from the persistent asymmetry of the preceding counterposed torque pairs, represented by the double-bars.
In other words, the inherent asymmetry indicated by the asymmetric 'V' atop item 'B' is propogated downwards throughout each successive cycle.
Half of the momentum being input each cycle is being conserved; the other half either mutually cancelling, or else being sunk to gravity * time.
This means one of the two interacting inertias is either decelerated, or not fully accelerated in the first place; either way resulting in a velocity difference, and subsequent collision, redistributing the conserved remaining momentum between the two equal inertias, halving its velocity component, and thus quartering its KE value, resulting in an accumulation of 50% of momentum paid for each cycle, at 25% efficiency / 75% dissipated per cycle.
All you need is the Toys page, and the distinction between momentum and energy / work potential.
Momentum's conserved, and the product of inertia and velocity.
Work potential is half the inertia times the squared velocity.
So long as the dimensions are understood, the actual units could be anything.
IE:
• if the two interacting inertias each has a value of '1'
• if the velocity increments in values of '1' (ie. equal accels throughout)
• each acceleration by '1' of the two equal masses costs '1' unit of work potential
• 5 such cycles thus cost 5 equal units of work potential..
• ..resulting in two units of '1' inertia traveling at 2.5 units of velocity..
• ..and an output work potential of 6.25 units (2 equal units of inertia at 2.5 units of velocity has 6.25 units of KE, but for an expenditure of only 5 units of PE)
6.25 obviously being 125% of 5.
All we did there was recognise the distinction between momentum and energy, and assign arbitrary values of '1' for everything - the point being that the maths describing the interaction are simply the two most fundamental and basic formulas in mechanics, but it's down to us, the reader, to apply them accordingly.
The Toys page portrays an interaction that keeps, and accumulates, half of the momentum it pays for each cycle of the two equal interacting inertias, thus at 25% efficiency per cycle, but with a rolling 25% per-cycle efficiency accumulator on the value of the ever-rising KE.
The key is simply p=mV or L=Iw, and KE=½mV² or ½Iw². Just apply that to the Toys page and you hit unity at the fourth cycle, and 125% of it at the fifth.
It proves Bessler preempted all his contemporaries in having resolved the vis viva dispute, independently, between 1712 and the date of its authoring. Presumably, this being the key, it had seemed inevitable that future generations would reach the same findings and thus recognise his priority posthumously, even if he were never to reap recognition in his lifetime.
Quite simply, the mechanical distinctions between momentum and energy, insofar as their respective terms of conservation, are the functional components of the interactions he's depicting in the Toys page, if not throughout MT - they're the qualitative 'parts' of his gain principle, and the only such principle that is possible, depending as it does on CoM and CoE holding precisely as they're supposed to in their respective frames of reference; 5 J of PE really can drum up 6.25 J of KE, simply following the above conditions of a cyclic momentum asymmetry between equal interacting inertias, consolidated with inelastic collisions.
How hard can it be to physically implement these conditions? To find a mechanical arrangement that actually accomplishes the rolling trade the Toys page describes? I've been at least five years at it so far, so realising the key only gets you so far; actually putting it into practice? I'm still in idiot-school..
It's the only MT that shows an energy gain: A series of 5 asymmetric interactions, each encompassing two torques in one angular direction, for a single one going back the other way.
The top, single vertical bar on 'A' with a T-shape represents an initial input torque (think of the 'T' as a handle).
The skewed 'V' shape atop 'B' indicates a left-to-right bias for the resulting torque / momentum distributions, ie. a CW or CCW bias.
Each single vertical bar thereafter is the accumulating leftover from the persistent asymmetry of the preceding counterposed torque pairs, represented by the double-bars.
In other words, the inherent asymmetry indicated by the asymmetric 'V' atop item 'B' is propogated downwards throughout each successive cycle.
Half of the momentum being input each cycle is being conserved; the other half either mutually cancelling, or else being sunk to gravity * time.
This means one of the two interacting inertias is either decelerated, or not fully accelerated in the first place; either way resulting in a velocity difference, and subsequent collision, redistributing the conserved remaining momentum between the two equal inertias, halving its velocity component, and thus quartering its KE value, resulting in an accumulation of 50% of momentum paid for each cycle, at 25% efficiency / 75% dissipated per cycle.
All you need is the Toys page, and the distinction between momentum and energy / work potential.
Momentum's conserved, and the product of inertia and velocity.
Work potential is half the inertia times the squared velocity.
So long as the dimensions are understood, the actual units could be anything.
IE:
• if the two interacting inertias each has a value of '1'
• if the velocity increments in values of '1' (ie. equal accels throughout)
• each acceleration by '1' of the two equal masses costs '1' unit of work potential
• 5 such cycles thus cost 5 equal units of work potential..
• ..resulting in two units of '1' inertia traveling at 2.5 units of velocity..
• ..and an output work potential of 6.25 units (2 equal units of inertia at 2.5 units of velocity has 6.25 units of KE, but for an expenditure of only 5 units of PE)
6.25 obviously being 125% of 5.
All we did there was recognise the distinction between momentum and energy, and assign arbitrary values of '1' for everything - the point being that the maths describing the interaction are simply the two most fundamental and basic formulas in mechanics, but it's down to us, the reader, to apply them accordingly.
The Toys page portrays an interaction that keeps, and accumulates, half of the momentum it pays for each cycle of the two equal interacting inertias, thus at 25% efficiency per cycle, but with a rolling 25% per-cycle efficiency accumulator on the value of the ever-rising KE.
The key is simply p=mV or L=Iw, and KE=½mV² or ½Iw². Just apply that to the Toys page and you hit unity at the fourth cycle, and 125% of it at the fifth.
It proves Bessler preempted all his contemporaries in having resolved the vis viva dispute, independently, between 1712 and the date of its authoring. Presumably, this being the key, it had seemed inevitable that future generations would reach the same findings and thus recognise his priority posthumously, even if he were never to reap recognition in his lifetime.
Quite simply, the mechanical distinctions between momentum and energy, insofar as their respective terms of conservation, are the functional components of the interactions he's depicting in the Toys page, if not throughout MT - they're the qualitative 'parts' of his gain principle, and the only such principle that is possible, depending as it does on CoM and CoE holding precisely as they're supposed to in their respective frames of reference; 5 J of PE really can drum up 6.25 J of KE, simply following the above conditions of a cyclic momentum asymmetry between equal interacting inertias, consolidated with inelastic collisions.
How hard can it be to physically implement these conditions? To find a mechanical arrangement that actually accomplishes the rolling trade the Toys page describes? I've been at least five years at it so far, so realising the key only gets you so far; actually putting it into practice? I'm still in idiot-school..
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
...a better question is perhaps "which MT's are best able to contribute to the results portrayed in the Toys page?"
This leads you back to the many preceding MT's that the Toys page may reference.
But the general picture is 'something MT 40-ish' - the Toys page shows a 90° offset between the actions of upper and lower hammer toys 'E' and 'D' with respect to the the rotating axis represented by 'A' and 'B'. This is your basic 'cross piece' - that is, one, minimal mechanism has a cross-shaped profile, and involves angular and linear (radial) motions.
The de facto singular objectives of whatever these motions, is to pay the same amount of energy to come away with the same rise in system momentum each cycle, despite rising speed, across some RPM range.
With no stator, the first and third laws of motion preclude any other source or sink of momentum than gravity and time; weight has to spend more time on the descending, than rising side, so something like this:
A wheel overbalancing, yesterday
..that is, it is implicit that there must be radial, as well as angular, motion within the system.
The energy efficiency of a GPE interaction is always 100%, so we can't get 'cheap GPE' nor boost the KE value of its output.
So we need to do something else, besides the GPE interaction; a separate, inertial interaction, that exploits gravity to cause an asymmetric distribution of momentum from a force or torque applied between two equal inertias, or else, some way of wringing a consistent 'up' vs 'down' G*t asymmetry at constant unit energy cost across some RPM range.
If we keep our 'possible' and 'impossible' piles neatly separated, you'd think we should be able to navigate a path between 'em..?
This leads you back to the many preceding MT's that the Toys page may reference.
But the general picture is 'something MT 40-ish' - the Toys page shows a 90° offset between the actions of upper and lower hammer toys 'E' and 'D' with respect to the the rotating axis represented by 'A' and 'B'. This is your basic 'cross piece' - that is, one, minimal mechanism has a cross-shaped profile, and involves angular and linear (radial) motions.
The de facto singular objectives of whatever these motions, is to pay the same amount of energy to come away with the same rise in system momentum each cycle, despite rising speed, across some RPM range.
With no stator, the first and third laws of motion preclude any other source or sink of momentum than gravity and time; weight has to spend more time on the descending, than rising side, so something like this:
A wheel overbalancing, yesterday
..that is, it is implicit that there must be radial, as well as angular, motion within the system.
The energy efficiency of a GPE interaction is always 100%, so we can't get 'cheap GPE' nor boost the KE value of its output.
So we need to do something else, besides the GPE interaction; a separate, inertial interaction, that exploits gravity to cause an asymmetric distribution of momentum from a force or torque applied between two equal inertias, or else, some way of wringing a consistent 'up' vs 'down' G*t asymmetry at constant unit energy cost across some RPM range.
If we keep our 'possible' and 'impossible' piles neatly separated, you'd think we should be able to navigate a path between 'em..?
MrVibrating wrote:How hard can it be to physically implement these conditions? To find a mechanical arrangement that actually accomplishes the rolling trade the Toys page describes? I've been at least five years at it so far, so realising the key only gets you so far; actually putting it into practice? I'm still in idiot-school..
So true; you have summed were we are in a nut shell.
The thought that passed by was having two identical inertia masses could transfer momentum asymmetrically; when the first makes a glancing blow on the second.
With the fist moving along a path at a different angle to the direction of acceleration due to gravity. Were the second has a stepper angle to the acceleration due to gravity.
All the Best
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
re: One for sure MT number
;7) Maybe I took dax too literally (pick one MT) .. The Toy's Page being numbered 138-141 with 6 mechanical elements. It is where we are supposed to focus our attentions, as we all appreciate.
Personally, I think the Toy's are mainly indicative of classical mechanical parts and mechanical actions found in B's. final solution.
Mechanical symbolisms, metaphors for actions, abstracts, that 'resemble' his collective final solution mechanics.
We simultaneously batter away at the gates of Classical Newtonian Physics ably defended by Emmy Noether and her Theorem of Classical Symmetries ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
This article is about Emmy Noether's first theorem, which derives conserved quantities from symmetries.
Noether's theorem or Noether's first theorem states that every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law.
The non-classical answer that trips up Noether is in the Toy's Page, if we need more motivation.
If we all keep hammering at the walls of the keep from different sides we will break the fortress down.MrV wrote:How hard can it be to physically implement these conditions? To find a mechanical arrangement that actually accomplishes the rolling trade the Toys page describes? I've been at least five years at it so far, so realising the key only gets you so far; actually putting it into practice?
Personally, I think the Toy's are mainly indicative of classical mechanical parts and mechanical actions found in B's. final solution.
Mechanical symbolisms, metaphors for actions, abstracts, that 'resemble' his collective final solution mechanics.
We simultaneously batter away at the gates of Classical Newtonian Physics ably defended by Emmy Noether and her Theorem of Classical Symmetries ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
This article is about Emmy Noether's first theorem, which derives conserved quantities from symmetries.
Noether's theorem or Noether's first theorem states that every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law.
The non-classical answer that trips up Noether is in the Toy's Page, if we need more motivation.