The ONE WORD that could give it ALL AWAY !

[Fletcher]

Yes, I think that is logical ECC1. Stampers lift only one-way and so does the water screw. ATEOTD the 12 foot Kassel wheel engraving was to suggest its utility value.

[Tarsier79]

The crossing of the rope is for greater contact area through rotation to reduce slippage.

[Fletcher]

I'm not sure it was that simple. It makes no sense to drop everything and run off on errands or holiday. I think he needed time to figure out how to either maximise power output, multiply mechanisms, calculate forces or weights etc. He knew how to do it, but had a mechanical challenge to overcome (even if it was only simplification) and or a mathematical model to build.

So then what the timeline of B’s account means is that the solution is not obvious. He wasn’t 100% sure at first. But once he tried it, it looked good and he found such relief that he felt he could finally stop having to try.

I think that is logical. Else his first experiments which encouraged him so much would have resulted in a "runner" then and there. There was more to "do". His experimental embodiment of his PM Principle gave him a way forward, with clarity, imo !

There’s something in between obviousness. Some “artistic application” stands in the way.

I’m thinking it was something similar to a Slinky toy. Something that once it got going, continuously fell over. And that the solution is located more in the RESET of whatever it is. Something that makes the reset disappear.

FWIW .. I would perhaps reflect on what B. says in MT's 44 and 48 as a cross check on what that "artistic application" should encompass. N.B. these are ball transfer type OOB wheels, and not common weight displacement type wheels.


MT44 : .. "This problem looks good, but as sketched it does nothing special as long as no other application is present."

MT48 : .. "The principle is good, but this figure will bring about no mobility by itself until completely different, additional structures have been provided."

Tarsier and myself have discussed this previously - that in all likelihood the required application and structures could probably make just about any common OOB wheel into a runner i.e. the "bolt-on theory" !

However it also seems likely imo that the basic mechanical premise is fundamentally able to stand on its own legs !

[ArchCalc]

Fletcher: “ FWIW .. I would perhaps reflect on what B. says in MT's 44 and 48 as a cross check on what that "artistic application" should encompass. N.B. these are ball transfer type OOB wheels, and not common weight displacement type wheels.


MT44 : .. "This problem looks good, but as sketched it does nothing special as long as no other application is present."

MT48 : .. "The principle is good, but this figure will bring about no mobility by itself until completely different, additional structures have been provided."

Yes, I do remember reading somewhere that after B’s death a wheel was found with “small compartments” near the outer edge.
And then there’s that drawing with 120 small circles near the rim.

[ArchCalc]

“I agree with Tarsier79, I think he just meant a “slip of the tongue” might accidentally reveal more than he wanted or intended. I don’t see how one word could give the game away”

JC

Agree. Similar to “I’d like to have a word with you.” “But first, a word about PM.” Etc.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Arch,
I was going to say, before you switched the subject; the difference between unobvious and obvious is 10 years of trying shit that didn't work. Sounds to me like he figured out how to do the wheel first, then he had the dream. IOW, he was dreaming of sweat success---Sam

[ArchCalc]

Arch,
I was going to say, before you switched the subject; the difference between unobvious and obvious is 10 years of trying shit that didn't work. Sounds to me like he figured out how to do the wheel first, then he had the dream. IOW, he was dreaming of sweat success---Sam

You know, you’re probably right.

[johannesbender]

quoted out of context :

.....Indeed, this
long-sought and much-desired machine, or so-called Perpetual
Motion. (T.N. - pure artificiale quoad durantem materiam is
added after P.M. – this Latin phrase is then described a few
lines later, marked *) is a revolving wheel, which is able to run,
by means of its own innate momentum, *

for as long as its
innate structure and character is not compromised, and so long
as it does not fly to pieces, smash or break, or become defective
or damaged.

In the text Above, after Karl has defined what was known as "pm" back then , he also described the typical conditions of failure other than self-sustaining-failure.

But, since the principle is viable, and the material
of which this device is constructed is not subject to defect, lack
of durability or brittleness,

Karl moves on to say the principle is capable of working successfully , and , that since the device is constructed of durable material , he cannot see a reason why it would fail to keep going as required by the definition of "pm" back then.

there remains no doubt that it could,
and would, if started, continue to rotate indefinitely

So , imo , i think the "device" was a metal construction , seems like it could rule out some designs/things .
For instance , consider the discussion about warped boards or such , which does not fit with what Karl describes imo.

[ArchCalc]

As for words, is there any evidence that nothing hung from the axle, other than B saying that nothing did??
I saw where dGravesand tried to pry his hand inside, in front of B.
There must have been something written about it other than B thereafter destroying the wheel under the guise of indignation, when really it was to eliminate evidence of something.
I have to think of all possibilities. B left everybody to speculate…
I believe what Karl said about it. That it was real, but not much of what B said.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Arch,
I'll try to answer the question as to a weight hanging from the axel. The giant problem with this "Idea", is it, the axel is connected to ground. I have built maybe 300 wheels, (made of iron) and, have tried to do this many, many, times. As far as I know, if you have anything, and I many thing, connected to ground, you are SOL--------------------------------------Sam

[Tarsier79]

Arch. We have had this conversation many times here.

My answer to them is this; you go and make a wheel that turns both
ways before you spout off again. And then I will still be able to cap it
all by making the true claim - even my enemies won't be able to
deny it - that no weights hang from the axle of my wheel.

Taking the sentence into context with the paragraph, He is proving nothing hangs from the axle by making the wheel bi-directional. He is talking about a weight hanging from the axle in a clockwork arrangement like a grandfather clock. The fact is a bi-directional wheel proves nothing, as a skilled mechanic could make a clockwork mechanism turn a wheel both ways.

I believe this statement does not mean that nothing hangs from the axle. There could be an MT13 type weight hanging from the axle. Alternatively, there could be 8 MT13 weights, one on each arm, providing an artificial earth reference. This way, they would all be technically going round the axle. IE. interpretation of clues is wildly subjective. Keep an open mind.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Arch, I think T--sp?--79 is wrong but, if you can get it to work, have at it----------------------------------Sam

[ArchCalc]

I checked and I don’t think I said I agreed or disagreed with a weight hanging from the axle. Just if there was more written about it. I don’t believe anything B said or published though. He wanted to sell books. He was almost a PM pundit of sorts.
There are only two things I believe 100%. Karl as a credible witness and the fact that B was building wheels with improvement each time. A fraud wouldn’t have kept going like that.
B was his own worst enemy.

[cloud camper]

According to my super educated theory, an anchor weight was necessary hanging from the axle to prevent the mono directional wheel from flopping 90 deg down since the wheel was claimed to be heavy and full on one side of the wheel and empty and light on the other.

Without an anchor weight what keeps the mechanism from flopping over?

And if everything turns with the wheel as B claims we would have a horribly out of balance wheel that would probably want to jump out of it's bearings.

What gives?

The Gera and Draschwitz wheels were mono directional but there seems to be very little eyewitness info on these wheels even though they were operated in B's front yard for all to see!

There is a lot of information at this site on all the wheels but still little on the mono wheels.

https://orffyre.tripod.com/overview.html

[Sam Peppiatt]

Well Arch, I thought I was trying to help you out. I assure you, I won't make that mistake again-------------------------Sam