One for sure MT number

[daxwc]

It has been quite the array of answers only Oystein’s took me by surprise (although made perfect sense after I read it). Actually I would have agreed with Fletcher on MT 11. I should have given you a range maybe but I really don’t know rules of the game (I will explain later).

My old personal opinion was 1-55 held the movement for one-way wheel and 56 to 141 held secrets to the bi-directional wheel.

What MT number do you think it is absolutely not? This time let’s stick to MT 10 – 55. I will explain later.

Also how many MT’s hold the secret. example; there is three or 4,5, 6, 7 etc.

[Fletcher]

43 , and two hold the secret imo, but only in vague mechanically suggestive terms.

Not counting the Toy's Page.

[MrVibrating]

;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.

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?

If we all keep hammering at the walls of the keep from different sides we will break the fortress down.

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.

The first symmetry break is between inbound vs outbound legs of a closed-loop gravitational interaction - a timing asymmetry afforded by the reactionless nature of inertial torques.

This is the foundation symmetry break - incidentally one of the first things our parents taught us how to do, as toddlers down the park - and it gets us through the first law of motion, by bypassing the third law; so, changing the net momentum of an otherwise-closed system of masses interacting about a common axis, purely via the internal expenditure of work, and without application of counter-torque at that axis; N1 back in its box, and N3 - we'll call you..

Strictly, we now no longer need rely on a stator - on external coordinate space, and thus the static FoR - for our continued acceleration.. and thus the potential energy cost of that continued acceleration is independent of the key factor causing its KE value to square with velocity in the static frame; in principle, we're free to start buying momentum at constant energy cost, in spite of our rising system velocity..

Breaking energy symmetry obviously requires the involvement of inelastic collisions, whether that's to equalise transient velocity / momentum changes, govern the 'velocity' component of a given momentum value in order to lower CF workloads / input costs, or both..

I knocked up a sim yesterday to re-check CFPE - rotKE symmetry under a variety of different weighted-vMoI phasings, and it is definitely water-tight, no opportunities there; without inelastic collisions to break up the momenta's velocity / inertia ratio, the CFPE is essentially stuck in the static FoR since CF force as a function of RPM is absolute.. unless you mix it with overlapping axial / orbital CF's, perhaps, but i doubt you could break symmetry that way (ie. the CF profile of a large axial MoI in a smaller-radius orbit, such that the axial CF profile includes both positive and negative phases of the orbital CF profile, type situation - could be interesting, but prolly still very 'circular'.. soz i'm still half-stuck on 'diametric' levers (so why not a diametric vMoI, right?)).. the attached sims pretty much do for the chances of a CF-PE - rotKE asymmetry w/o collisions tho.. showing that the change in GPE + radial KE + rotKE rise is equal to the change in CFPE under all basic permutations..


The really thought-provoking implication of Noether's theorem of course is what it means for the so-called zero momentum frame, and the potential effects on the long-term weather forecast..

Throw a dart without incurring recoil whilst riding a skateboard, and it'll land with more KE than the PE you expended...

..but it'll also introduce more momentum than Earth had previously!


As Sean McCarthy of Steorn used to say, a working OU system can only be an affirmation of Noether's principle, just as each step in the process will depend on CoE and CoM holding just as they're supposed to within their respective frame of reference..

The key to this overlooked hole in classical physics - the important detail everyone else has missed - is that we can gain momentum from gravity precisely because of its constancy - ie. because it's a time-constant rate of change of momentum, whereas mechanical speeds, via the magic of inertial torques, are reactionlessly and arbitrarily variable, thus inbound and outbound 'soak times' can be unequal, causing a net acceleration or deceleration, and thus a corresponding change in momentum.

The same mistake is usually repeated in consideration of Shawyer's EM drive, wherein "special relativity" and the fact that relativistic mass is perfectly-well understood per Plank et al is simply invoked to brush off the claims without really considering the proposed mechanism, which is that the physical momentum asymmetry would depend upon the constancy of lightspeed to furnish opposite ends of the frustum waveguide resonator with unequal time rates of change of relativistic momentum - so again, the momentum asymmetry is a temporal asymmetry that depends upon the constancy of the field source / sink..

The biggest take-home here is that the G*t asymmetry means we're dealing with an open system - open to gravity, time and momentum - and CoE is entirely contingent upon CoM..

[ovyyus]

MT18 is one of the few that seems to show the rim boards described by Wolff.

What MT number do you think it is absolutely not?

MT01

[Fletcher]

.. As Sean McCarthy of Steorn used to say, a working OU system can only be an affirmation of Noether's principle, just as each step in the process will depend on CoE and CoM holding just as they're supposed to within their respective frame of reference..

The key to this overlooked hole in classical physics - the important detail everyone else has missed - is that we can gain momentum from gravity precisely because of its constancy

We have no choice in the matter - it is what it is - we have to work with it. And thank our lucky stars CoM and CoE are consistent in those frames, so we can find a workaround outside those frames.

We each attempt to do that from perhaps different approaches and context. All circling the same man in the water.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

...and two hold the secret imo, but only in vague mechanically suggestive terms.

Only 2 MT hold the secret hmm… interesting. I never knew there was so much diversity in thought.

I would have said 5 MT’s hold the secret but all just implied design features such as flexible arms for example then they all have to be melded together.

[Fletcher]

Only two when I compare with the Toy's Page lol.

Post Covid gotta tighten our belts and learn to do more with less ;7)

ETA : your guess is as good as mine dax :7)

[Georg Künstler]

MrVibrating wrote:

The key to this overlooked hole in classical physics - the important detail everyone else has missed - is that we can gain momentum from gravity precisely because of its constancy - ie. because it's a time-constant rate of change of momentum, whereas mechanical speeds, via the magic of inertial torques, are reactionlessly and arbitrarily variable, thus inbound and outbound 'soak times' can be unequal, causing a net acceleration or deceleration, and thus a corresponding change in momentum.

In other words : Apply a vibration to a constant force, a overlay.
The vibration can have different characteristics, like sine or sawtooth.
Impacting a mass against the other will resut in steep flanks,
So the vibration has at least one steep flank.
When you look at the toys page, then you have a flip flop, a square wave.
Steep flanks have a time of zero.
Besslers words :"rise like lightning"

A overlay function you have with a swing rod, used in sports.

[Leafy]

Do you guys think Bessler had many working designs or he just use one design for all of his wheels? Hopefully there are more than one way of doing it so we have more chance of hitting one of them.

[silent]

Bessler claimed he had wheels/mechanisms that worked on many different principles. I assume that only one principle (the principle of perpetual motion) was responsible for his wheel.

silent

[Fletcher]

Well said silent.

If we use MT's 44 and 48 as examples, they are different 'principles'. But one mechanical PM principal could make them work. And that PM principal is closely aligned to B's. PM Laws which he never spells out.

I don't think it is unreasonable that over the years of building wheels the designs/principles changed and perhaps evolved [Gera might be different from Kassel, not considering one-way or bi-directional]. For reasons of being more sturdy, more reliable, less moving parts, better efficiency, more power, less maintenance, less frictions, aesthetics, interest etc etc.

Do you guys think Bessler had many working designs or he just use one design for all of his wheels? Hopefully there are more than one way of doing it so we have more chance of hitting one of them.

By extension, find the PM Laws and this should narrow down the search for the mechanical PM principal to enact those Laws.

Then that principal can dominate other principles ;7)

[eccentrically1]

The internal structure of the machine is of a nature according to the laws of mechanical perpetual motion, so arranged that certain disposed weights, once in rotation, gain force from their own swinging, and must continue this movement as long as their structure does not lose its position and arrangement."
- Johann E. E. Bessler, 1717

Here’s the quote. Weights gaining force from their own swinging is the problem we can’t solve. The bootstraps conundrum.

[Leafy]

How much would a Bessler Wheel go for these day?

If you have a Bessler wheel, what would you do? Keep it a secret and only bless a few? Sell it? I mean Bessler asked for 100,000 thalers. I read that 1 Thaler is about a work day worth. Back then they have less population and less demand for energy compare to now. We have more currency now. Cooperation can be multi billion. We do have competition from solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, fossil fuel ... . So what’s a fair price? I read somewhere says PM worth around 6 millions USD.

[agor95]

Hi eccentrically1

I am not seeing the problem.

Would you like to clarify the context of your statement; like who is the 'we' in the statement.

All the Best.

[agor95]

How much would a Bessler Wheel go for these day?

If you have a Bessler wheel, what would you do? Keep it a secret and only bless a few? Sell it? I mean Bessler asked for 100,000 thalers. I read that 1 Thaler is about a work day worth. Back then they have less population and less demand for energy compare to now. We have more currency now. Cooperation can be multi billion. We do have competition from solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, fossil fuel ... . So what’s a fair price? I read somewhere says PM worth around 6 millions USD.

You are not the first to ask about the $$$$$ signs and you are not the last.

Just ask yourself how much money did the inventor of A/C power get.

All the Best