Please help with this system

[Leafy]

I have case A and B. They are both pendulum of length 1m attached to a 1kg mass. They are both drop from 1m height and reach the bottommost.

The difference is in case A the mass is free to rotates about its center. In case B the mass is locked so it cannot rotates. The position marking is shown.

The question is “are there an energy difference between the two cases?�. Please verify this with a sim if you can. Thanks.

[Fletcher]

Both will arrive at bdc with the same Total Kinetic Energy made up of Translational KE (KEt) and Rotational KE (KEr). This total KE is exactly equal to the amount of Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE) they lost from height loss.

Therefore mgh = KEt + KEr ... at any height measured.

.. Assumes no frictional losses of energy from bearings or windage etc. Also assumes the pendulum shafts are massless for the exercise.


Since A is free to rotate about its axis its orientation will remain constant in the fall. Thus it will have only Ket and velocity x. i.e. have no KEr.

B's orientation is fixed to the pendulum bob therefore as it falls it is forced to change orientation (twisted). It arrives at bdc with KEt + KEr with velocity y.

Conclusion : x > y

But in both cases Total KE of A = Total KE of B = GPE (mgh) of A = GPE (mgh) of B


In the case of zero KEr (case A) the velocity at any height can be calculated using a rearrangement of the two formulas mgh = 1/2mv^2

.. to get v = sqrt(2gh) ... for any height.

Sim not required but will show his graphically.

[Leafy]

So case B will have lower translational speed than case A. If we unlock and suddenly stop Case B at bdc, the mass will rotates. Does this rotational energy makes up for the translational loss?

It seems like we can install a generator instead of the locking device. During its fall, we can extract the “twisting� energy. When stopped it at bdc, we can extract its rotational energy. Maybe this is the extra.

[Fletcher]

It still takes mgh to restore the pendulum, regardless of how you might bleed-off some of the KEr.

Total KE = mgh

The bob would have to substantially geared to spin very fast to have significant KEr vs KEt - but then it would slow the velocity at bdc (and KEt) to compensate so that Totals always remained the same.

Still requires mgh to re-set.

It is one of the arguments why gravity is a conservative force.

[Leafy]

Remember we are exploring free energy, so we can’t assume everything has to add up so the total always remained the same.

It takes mgh to restore the pendulum, but we also accumulated 3 parts of energy. Translation KE, rotation KE, and regenerative KE. I speculate that KEt+KEr=mgh . KE regenerative is free. Further more KEr=KEregen. My thinking is energy is a force x distance irrespective to frame of reference.

But if there is a sim that shows all 3 parts of this energy add up to mgh. Then I have no reason to doubt.

[Fletcher]

All I can say Leafy is that many years ago I built those sims. I try to remember the lessons learned, even if that is agreeing with what physics says.

Might be time you downloaded Algodoo and started making some sims.

Here's how you can use rigid joints in WM placed over pin joints to create a one way ratchet. You can use this method to lock the bob pivot at bdc as I did in those sims from long ago (tho this example is slightly different).

Best.

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/down ... er=user_id

[Leafy]

No doubt you’re one of the best in here. I can feel solid expertise and precision in what you’re saying. It helped me a lot when you clarify KEr take energy from KEt. I was wishful that’s not true but it’s too obvious.lol.

I doubt serious scientists like Einstein or Tesla never thought about PM. But damn, they didn’t talk about it means they gave up? That’s crazy. No wonder Wagner didn’t even look at Bessler wheel. He probably thought about it hard too and gave up.

[Fletcher]

We don't give up either Leafy. Call us gluttons for punishment *grin*

Here's the problem in a nut shell (precisely).

"Width for Height" math of Newtonian Physics for rotating mechanical systems must be violated in order to escape from Energy Symmetry and Conservative Force of Gravity's predictable outcomes !

Anybody who thinks about it too hard to the point of being overwhelmed, or simply chooses to believe there are no exceptions to be found in mechanics, will probably give up looking. Wagner and others of education might not have believed it possible but that doesn't make it true. Bessler, and importantly Karl, were testament to that, fortunately.

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

Here's an intelligent thoughtful recent post in JC's blog topic that makes the case very well (full post). A quality summary, insightful observations, and worthy questions imo. The author was anonymous but should be commended, also imo. I think it is worth repeating here and bookmarking.

Hold on to this narrative when doubts creep in !

Since you invited comments...

First, keep up the good work John.

Next...there IS a question at the end of all that follows...

What has kept me interested in this (and following your activities) for the last 10 years is primarily the words and actions of Karl (Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel). The written accounts of other notable observers (all with a lot to lose if they were later revealed to have been fooled) are also impressive, but Karl is the witness I can't explain away.

Correct me if I am wrong about any of the following: History remembers Karl as a man of integrity (I think I read somewhere that he often brokered negotiations among other rulers because they all trusted him). I think it’s safe to say that history also remembers Karl as a man of a least average intelligence and one with an interested in science and mechanics.

If, after having seen the inner workings of Bessler's wheel, Karl had commented that it was sophisticated and of "genius" design, I would have dismissed Karl as having been deceived by a complex machine that was no more than an elaborate clock winding down slowly. Instead, Karl said it was stunningly simple, and that he was surprised that no one had thought of it before. He also commented that a "carpenter's apprentice" could have constructed it. (A superfluous statement that adds emphasis by the fact it was even offered. Also, Karl MUST have observed it turning, and later have given thought to HOW this simple design worked without violating simple rules of mechanics).

All this fits with Bessler's own (often stated) concern that when people saw how simple it was, he would lose out on economic rights in it. If Bessler was actually a fraud and never intended to show the inner workings, why not go all out and claim the design to be a masterpiece of engineering? A final thought along this line...Bessler refused to enter into a legal agreement that he would be paid AFTER revealing his design. Instead, he said he would take payment FIRST, and if then shown to be fraud people could take back the money AND HIS HEAD! A wise man with a brilliant but simple design would realize that the burden of pursuing payment AFTER would be difficult and maybe impossible.

Here are my questions to you John. I am not an expert in any of this. For all I know, it’s possible that you are on the right track and that your recent design just needs a minor tweak. But I am VERY surprised that all of your research about clues and codes has led you to a design that seems FAR more than simple and easily constructed. Forget the skill level of a German apprentice 300 years ago. Do you think someone would describe your current design as "so simple" that it is “surprising no one has though of it before�? I would describe it as a very clever orchestration of levers and weights shifting in a precision manner. Last question..(for now)..what about the “Apologia� drawing? Where does it fit with your design? Of this drawing, Bessler said : “And still, you do not understand?�.

There is no criticism in any of the above. Just genuine curiosity.

[daxwc]

If, after having seen the inner workings of Bessler's wheel, Karl had commented that it was sophisticated and of "genius" design, I would have dismissed Karl as having been deceived by a complex machine that was no more than an elaborate clock winding down slowly. Instead, Karl said it was stunningly simple, and that he was surprised that no one had thought of it before. He also commented that a "carpenter's apprentice" could have constructed it. (A superfluous statement that adds emphasis by the fact it was even offered. Also, Karl MUST have observed it turning, and later have given thought to HOW this simple design worked without violating simple rules of mechanics).

I have always wondered if the "carpenter's apprentice" was a true statement by Karl. Notice he doesn’t say clockmaker’s apprentice, millwright apprentice, organist apprentice or some other trade. If the wheel was full of gears would you still claim a carpenter could build it or would your first instinct be to pick a different trade? A major clue perhaps, either way it just adds to the enigma.

[Fletcher]

Fischer was a 28 year old architect employed by Karl to work on the Savery Steam Engine. He had access to Karl. Karl would have to be vigilante if discussing B's. wheels, especially if talking to someone with familiarity who also had mechanical skills and knowledge. Fischers account says Karl was careful in what he said.


Letter from Fischer to Desaguliers :

'His Highness, who possesses all the qualities that a great prince should have, has always had consideration for the inventor, and will not use the machine in any way for fear of the secret being discovered before the inventor had received a reward from foreigners. His Highness, who has a perfect understanding of mathematics, assured me that the machine is so simple that a carpenter's boy could understand and make it after having seen the inside of this wheel, and that he would not risk his name in giving these attestations, if he did not have knowledge of the machine.


I think the context matters quite a lot. And Karl was talking in generic non committal terms that wouldn't give anything away. Carpenters boy is about as generic as you can get but does convey that the system was very simple, imo.


Where does the oft quoted line about Karl saying "he was surprised no one else had thought of it" come from again ? I have forgotten for the moment.

[ME]

Who knows how landgrave Karl assessed the skill-range of a carpenter's boy.
I think based on Bessler's wheel diagrams ([link]) we can assume that his wheels lacked any kind of exuberant decoration that would likely be found on every wooden object in the castle.
When woodcarving is found to be a basic skill, then perhaps the lack of it alone skewed the appreciation of the mechanical complexity.
Yet when you look at the MT designs then I think they look indeed as like a doable project for any carpenter's boy.
It would be weird when Bessler's wheel was much more complex than what can be found in the MT -- like Wagner's wheel design [link: John Collins]
I think the "carpenter"-part at least suggests there'll not be an abundance of iron components -- like the MT 50's, esp. MT051, when I have to pick an example.

[daxwc]

In bessler’s estate inventory there is 48 gears for the water machine. I seem to have forgotten; what water machine?

[zoelra]

Was that the machine that would pump water to the top of Karl's water fountain?

[Fletcher]

Where does the oft quoted line about Karl saying "he was surprised no one else had thought of it" come from again ? I have forgotten for the moment.

Thirdly it is on record that sometime later (years) that Karl mentioned that wheel was so simple he was amazed that no one before had discovered the secret and also on another occasion that a carpenter's boy could make it given a chance to examine the machine.


https://www.besslerwheel.com/wwwboard/messages/963.html

That's as far as I've dug atm. Traced back to JC from the Frank Edwards accounts (wiki - myths).

[John Collins]

I think this is what you’re looking for fletch. See the last sentence below.

“ Jean Bernoulli (1667-1748) responded to 'sGravesande's publication. He was a member of a famous family of Swiss mathematicians and was, himself, a major contributor to mathematics. He was a firm supporter of Leibniz in the controversy with Newton over who first discovered the calculus. During his final years he worked mainly in the field of mechanics. In a letter to 'sGravesande he wrote,
'I move on now to your comments on the possibility of perpetual motion, which were written on the occasion of your examination of the effects of the machine at Kassel. Several years ago, marvellous things were written to me from Germany about this machine, and even a view of the exterior was sent to me. Now, I have been assured that the secret was communicated to His Serene Highness, the Landgrave of Hesse, under an oath of silence, and he was allowed to examine the internal structure of the wheel. Afterwards, his Serene Highness was quoted as saying to his ministers, that he believed the machine to be a true perpetual motion machine, and in addition, it was so simple and easy to construct that he was amazed that no one had managed to invent a similar machine before Herr Orffyreus.�

From my original book about Bessler, “Perpetual Motion, An Ancient Mystery Solved?

JC