We All Need to Face Up to the Limits of OB torque

[cloud camper]

OK folks - just been playing around with impacts. This is not a full wheel just a test to see if we can get the weights to flip over and reset.

Here we have a nutcracker mechanism from MT143 combined with the flipover weights from MT138 toy page.

And of course B taunting Wagner with "this is a nut you can't crack!"

Just trying to see if the lower weight when it reaches the top would flip over due to impact and it flips with energy to spare!!

We actually employ CF and momentum to get the weight to flip and go uphill!

The weights are all 10 kg and the weight of the yellow wheel is 600 kg!

The upper weight which actually becomes the lower weight doesn't do much and needs to flip over but I will be trying a simple rope connection between the weights to use the apparent extra energy of the upper weight to help the lower weight to flip.

If we can get both weights to flip, then we are back to initial conditions with both weights reset.

Keep in mind we have just delivered a hellatious blow to the 600 kg wheel!!

Are we making progress with impacts or not?

Isn't this a lot more fun than boring gravity wheels?

[Georg Künstler]

Hi cloud camper,
the impact of the down falling weight is a direct impact, so only a part of the energy will be transfered to the big wheel.
Better is an indirect impact.
The carrier of the down going weight can have a look like a fork.
The fork will make the impact, and the weight can pass and will rotate upwards.
The impact point is not the rotation point of the downgoing mass on this arm.

[WaltzCee]

If a picture is worth a thousand words an animation is worth a thousand pictures.
Thanks CC. I can see what you were saying here

How nutty is that - B is showing a double impact with the second impact being much weaker and at 90 degrees to the first!!

and how you harvest the 2nd impact. I can see I was barking up a different tree. My contraption totally turned off cf.


I think you have an excellent approach to the problem with a chance to throw Wagner's math out the window.

[cloud camper]

Well, it's too bad B couldn't have been a little less cryptic.

We could have solved this long ago.
Who knows what practical applications might be suitable to it?

But I'm not gonna make any claims!

Still gotta flip that lower weight - that could be a total dogs breath!!

[MrVibrating]

If collisions were the answer to OU, you’d need weights made of a material that is also OU. IOW not just perfectly elastic, but would bounce higher and higher after each impact.

For the maths of OU to take effect, the collisions have to be dissipative. As i say, one potentially-consistent solution for the Toys page interaction is a process of consolidating unilateral momentum necessitating two inelastic collisions per cycle, which, assuming a 1:1 ratio of interacting inertias, would each dissipate 50% of all remaining input energy,, thus wasting 75% of all input energy every cycle.. just gone straight away to noise and low-level heat!

Yet that 25% of remaining useful work done compounds over successive cycles with accumulating RPM's, by 25% each cycle. Hence by the second cycle, net mechanical I/O efficiency has risen to 50%, and by the third cycle rising to 75%, ie. only 25% down on KE:PE. At conclusion of the fourth cycle we hit I/O unity, with the fifth taking us to 125% of unity. Then 150% at the sixth, 200% at the eighth etc. etc.

All we're doing in that sequence is performing the same workload each cycle, paying the same amount of input energy, to cause the same net rise in system momentum, albeit dissipating 75% of all input energy to noise and heat every single cycle.. yet this is an inherently over-unity process; more to the point, the input and output energy metrics are thermodynamically decoupled by an effective N3 violation (accumulating unbalanced momenta), hence the system's mechanically 'under-unity' below 4 cycles, at unity by the fourth, and 125% over at the fifth, 'under' or 'over' unity being spectrum conditions of the more fundamental inertial decoupling of input vs output reference frames..

Simplified, it works like this:

• solving the KE equation ½mV² for 1 kg being accelerated to 1 m/s, we find the minimum-possible energy cost is ½ J

• inelastic collisions reset relative speeds between interacting inertias back to relative stasis

• note in the equation that energy squares with velocity.. hence that same 1 kg-m/s of momentum when already at say 1 m/s will now cost you not ½ J, but 1.5 J (since 1 kg @ 2 m/s has 2 J, of which we already had ½ J).. that same purchase of momentum at say 10 m/s would cost 10.5 J; in short, each doubling of speed requiring four times more energy..

• hence inelastic collisions reset us to the bottom of the V² multiplier on the input energy cost of accumulating momentum

For example, suppose we're thus able to repeat that half-Joule purchase for each 1 m/s acceleration of our 1 kg of inertia.. say, ten times in succession: 10 * ½ J = 5 J of total input energy / work done, however 1 kg at a final speed of 10 m/s has 50 J of energy.. ten times more than we've spent!

In practical terms however such simple solutions are impracticable; it's only when you get to two or more interacting inertias consolidating unilateral momentum accumulations together that you start to see solutions that might, possibly, be mechanised..

As i say, it doesn't matter how much one has to pay for that per-cycle constant momentum yield, nor how much is necessarily wasted each cycle; provided it is constant over sufficiently-many cycles, there's always an inevitable velocity threshold / no. of elapsed cycles below which the system's UU, and above which, OU, fundamentally because net input energy's summing over successive cycles and rising velocity, while output KE is squaring, the latter plot inevitably intersecting the former at some 'unity' velocity threshold.

Unlocking mechanical OU means manipulating the unit energy cost of momentum, which in turn means circumventing N1 and thus N3 - both trivial however using gravity, time... and inelastic collisions.

Like i say, the maths of OU doesn't work without 'em. Besides, there's no reason in an idealised embodiment of the maths that the dissipated heat couldn't also be accumulated and harnessed; net of heat plus KE is always OU for any such cycle, regardless of inertia ratios.. basically any gain in velocity without a corresponding change in counter-momentum when already moving (but not from stationary) is always OU for net input energy versus net of output KE plus heat.

Elastic collisions of course destroy those neat linear relationships (and surely that way madness lies?).. ;)

[eccentrically1]

thus wasting 75% of all input energy every cycle.. Yet that 25% of remaining useful work done compounds over successive cycles with accumulating RPM's, by 25% each cycle. Hence by the second cycle, net mechanical I/O efficiency has risen to 50%,

If it only has 50% in the second cycle and loses 75% each time, it would be -25% after the second cycle.
Right?

[MrVibrating]

OK folks - just been playing around with impacts. This is not a full wheel just a test to see if we can get the weights to flip over and reset.

Here we have a nutcracker mechanism from MT143 combined with the flipover weights from MT138 toy page.

And of course B taunting Wagner with "this is a nut you can't crack!"

Just trying to see if the lower weight when it reaches the top would flip over due to impact and it flips with energy to spare!!

We actually employ CF and momentum to get the weight to flip and go uphill!

The weights are all 10 kg and the weight of the yellow wheel is 600 kg!

The upper weight which actually becomes the lower weight doesn't do much and needs to flip over but I will be trying a simple rope connection between the weights to use the apparent extra energy of the upper weight to help the lower weight to flip.

If we can get both weights to flip, then we are back to initial conditions with both weights reset.

Keep in mind we have just delivered a hellatious blow to the 600 kg wheel!!

Are we making progress with impacts or not?

Isn't this a lot more fun than boring gravity wheels?

Nice, but you're torquing the wheel against a stator, hence it isn't an inertially closed system and thus the input FoR cannot undergo divergence from the absolute frame. Remember EMGAT! The maths don't solve otherwise..

I have precious little time for this ATM (due to being a bloody wage slave), however some other points that may be worth sharing:


• again, everyone should meditate on the hypothetical low-speed, hi-torque wheel Bessler said was possible, if time-consuming to build

• such a wheel is thus evidently not simply passively overbalancing, as with everything going around together, the only way to limit keeling speed would be via a never-ending rise in MoI to absorb the momentum sans velocity, the wheel radius growing ever-larger. This would obviously be absurd..

• hence the only way to decouple drop speed from RPM is if the weights are levering the wheel around, by torquing it against something else.. yet that other thing cannot be in the earth / absolute / static reference frame, relative to which input energy costs are inevitably going to square with rising velocity.. additionally, unless the momentum gain is sourced directly from gravity and time per kiiking, any counter-momenta produced need sinking to gravity and time; ie. the co-rotating pseudo-stator has to be transiently gravitating, or else interacting with something else that is; one way or anther, N1 and N3 say net system momentum is constant over time unless you can open it to some external force field, and gravity * time is the only one on offer in 1712..

• however here we hit another potential breakthrough conclusion: if radial or linear drops are required to explain the hypothetical slow-but-powerful wheel, ie with many fast discreet drops per unit angle of slow system rotation, then the re-lifts cannot be angular (ie. riding the wheel / rimstops back up), since this would immediately lead to a complete blowout of all GPE with little if anything rotating back up over the same period.. hence, the re-lifts must also be radial / linear.

• now consider the MT 80's, depicting these idiosyncratic pairs of linear pumps.. is it 85 and 87 that also depict the 'thresher and scholar' characters? What are they, then, but inertial torques - ie. alternate strokes of an MoI variation / the ice-skater effect? The 'flail' would rather be with the thresher because this describes the scissorjack extension, raising MoI and limiting speed, while potentially collecting rotKE as centrifugal PE (as by stretching a spring, say), while the scholar is performing work against CF, ie. a retraction of the scissorjacks / MoI, AKA kiiking.. to pump liquid... ie. to raise GPE..

• so the sequence of actions looks something like this: a weight's dropped linearly, torquing the wheel against some other transiently-gravitating 'pseudostator' while MoI on one or other body is increasing, followed 180° of system rotation later by the 'reset' stroke in which relative deceleration between those two key interacting angular inertias drives a re-lift of that GPE, while augmented by positive inertial torque from an MoI retraction

• so the top hammer toy on the toys page - the thresher and scholar - indicates alternate strokes of an MoI variation..

• .while the lower toy must represent acceleration vs deceleration / collision phases of a gravitationally-augmented asymmetric inertial interaction. As i've laboured ad nauseum, if the Toys page is depicting five cycles to OU ("something extraordinary"), then the resting MoI ratio of these two angular inertias must be 1:1 (or close anyway - an extra gram here or there wouldn't make a jot of difference..)

Thus the real lesson of MT 41 is probably not necessarily that radial lifts with angular drops could also be inverted to radial drops with angular lifts, but rather that the mechanism for re-lifting the weights is precisely the same one responsible for converting their drops into net torque / angular momentum in the first place.. simply alternating roles as 'driver' versus 'driven' (ie. inflected 'A' vs regular 'A' in MT-code), every 180° of system rotation. Note that a Roberval-type linkage wouldn't work here, the kiiker-plus-linear excursion mechanism on each side of the wheel needing to remain independent from the opposite side, so each can complete half its cycle every half-turn.

In short, the hypothetical slow-but-torquey wheel has to re-lift its weights just as busily as it drops them, precluding angular lifts and implying they must be linear, and, thus, accomplished by the same, if inverted, mechanism responsible for converting their falls into an angular inertial interaction between wheel and pseudo-stator, which 180° later closes in the act of re-lifting them.

Do the weights / mechs actually need delineating into separate sides of the wheel, as depicted, or else is that simply a way of clearly depicting the principle and instead the actual linear paths could all be purely radial - ie. overlapping in the axial plane, but hence impractical to draw that way? I don't know. The general picture however seems to be firming up, centering as it does around an angular inertial interaction between two MoI's closely matched over a full cycle, if one or other varying between, and performing alternate phases of an oscillating cycle every other 180° of system rotation; the momentum symmetry (and thus per-cycle momentum gain) of which is somehow biased (inevitably in terms of G*t) by overlapping and concurrent strokes of an MoI variation (ice-skater effect) also alternating every 180°.. and with a 90° offset between each half of each mech (hence a minimum system having a cross-shaped structure).


Getting real close now.. if only i had more time to work the case! It's not the only one i'm working on tho, and none of this pays rent..

Fix the unit energy cost of momentum from or to (ie. sinking counter-momentum) gravity and time for two or more full cycles and you're OU. That''s what the physics say. Fundamentally, one way or another, that's mathematically what Bessler's core principal achieved..

[MrVibrating]

And it's why B. never calls his PM wheels "Gravity-Wheels", or his deeply hidden (but so simple) PM Principle of Motive Force the "Gravity PM Principle".

DT John Collins pg 209 digital ..

.." And in truth it now seems to me that the time is long overdue, now that I have achieved my goal, once known only to God, that I and the world should see this principle, in itself so simple, and yet at the same time so deeply hidden, of everlasting motion, described in total detail and in mathematical simplicity, in praise of God’s boundless wisdom, and for the benefit of the entire world."

Even if some of us insist on calling our attempts at ever-lasting motion and innate motive force "Gravity-Wheels" ! It's a misnomer ! A water-wheel is a gravity-wheel.

They are in reality Pseudo-Gravity-Wheels or Faux-Gravity-Wheels. In the sense that a solid disk acting as a flywheel would no more be responsible for the continuous rotation than one of these mass displacement type wheels would be.

And that is the cut and thrust of MrV's topic heading "We All Need to Face Up to the Limits of OB torque".

DT John Collins pg 220 digital ..

.. "and also about one hundred previous ideas which were erroneous, and, to my cost, actually modeled by me (the so-called Pseudo P.M.).

However B. categorically says ..

DT John Collins pg 190 digital ..

"NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity."

Concluding .. many of us believe a traditional OB wheel "action/movement" has its role to play in the final solution, but it is as a supporting cast member to the masked star of the show who takes the final bow and applause on Broadway. Every star must have their foil !

As CC says, find and put the horse before the cart ! A force simply pushes or pulls something.

"Faux gravity wheels" i like :)

The momentum source is gravity and time.

The energy source however is whatever it is that actually constitutes 'inertia'.. that's all the maths tell us anyway.

LOL one of my little pet fantasies about how i'd present a working model to anyone is by initially explaining all the conservation laws - which of course the solution would surely depend upon - but while they were actually playing with the thing and realising it was apparently real.. i'd be all like "..so closed loops thru static fields yield zero net energy.." while they're sitting there playing with what every sense in their head is telling them is a de fact gravity wheel, surely? I mean you turn it sideways and it stops..? What sophistry is this?. You could really fry some brains yet without speaking a word of untruth..

But yeah, passive OB does seem consistent with many clues, and maybe they were used in some embodiments.. as i say tho, try square basic OB torque with OU momentum yields and there just is no way to spin it.. furthermore it runs into trouble explaining the speed regulation under positive and negative loads that so confounded Wolff, and also (especially) the hypothetical low-speed / high-power embodiment.

The load-matching behaviour, one might argue, may seem superficially consistent with a basic OB mechanism (radial lifts w/ angular OB drops) that ran at a maximum speed, from which any further increase in RPM would cut effective G-time to nil before eventually inverting it, ie. causing the wheel to rotate the weights back upwards, and so governing speed somewhat as the OB angle diminishes down towards BDC at the GPE system's max speed; this however wouldn't be able to explain the high-power / low speed wheel whose acceleration, in a statorless rig, should be a straightforward function of N2 per F=mA, A=F/m or in angular terms OB acceleration = OB torque over net system MoI; for a given weight imbalance / OB torque, only an MoI increase can slow the descent, yet obviously Bessler wasn't describing a wheel that would grow infinitely large.. in fact he mentioned that wheel, IIRC, in the same passage in which he claims he could raise power density (energy / volume) by up to a factor of four, IIRC - again, hard to square with any kind of OB mech as a prime mover / momentum source... unless you have an effective N3 break while lifting, but which in turn wouldn't be able to explain the claimed ability to be able to engineer a system to run at any preferential speed..

Of particular note, here - as i've pointed out before - is that he's not simply alluding to conventional power or energy component distributions, such as trading torque for angle or energy for time; a wheel that turns more slowly yet with more torque is producing more power and energy.. hence B's clue that such a wheel would still emit a steady chatter implies it's internally busy with many I/O interactions per cycle. Decoupling lift and drop speed from wheel speed is thus pivotal to this end..

[Fletcher]

lol .. Gary Larson would make a great Far Side cartoon of it.

Don't work so hard MrV ;7)

[MrVibrating]

Because Bessler says the gain effect has a maximum multiplication factor of 'fourfold', i suspect it involves diametric vs radial MoI's, since diameter is 2x radius and thus diametric weight levers have four times the inertia and thus four times the effective G-time, this being the only 'factor of four' limitation within a rotating system i can currently think of..

Thus the following idea is not fully consistent with all the clues (it only needs radial levers), and probably won't work. However i think i'm gonna plod through it regardless just to check up on how it fails (which i can already guess, but wish to double-check)..

It is however more consistent with other clues.. for instance, "A great craftsman would be he who can lightly cause a heavy thing to shoot upwards!" - ie. the 'quarters' riddle (again); does this not squarely frame an effective N3 break while lifting? IE. an effective GPE asymmetry - that is, lifting w/o recoil = lifting on the cheap.. maybe..

..this would thus allow consistency with OB torque as the prime momentum source; ie. it would no longer matter that momentum yields were falling off inversely to RPM as the exploit is actually 'free extra height' while lifting, that extra height thus worth extra drop time and thus extra momentum, potentially offsetting the usual diminishing G-time with rising RPM..

The thinking's this:

• wrt the hypothetical low-speed, high-torque embodiment:

• what could arrest its natural over-balancing acceleration, but a counter-acceleration?

• what if that counter-acceleration is caused by re-lifting the weights? Thus the overbalancing side of the wheel would be sinking counter-momenta to G*t from the re-lifting accelerations..

• for simplicity then, consider angular drops with angular lifts:

- three identical radial weight levers, attached to the wheel center by lockable motors / servos, and 90° apart, thus forming a 'T' shape and corresponding OB moment

- when each weight reaches BDC relative to the ground frame, its motor activates accelerating it around in the same direction as the wheel, increasing its angle by a further 90° and so halting once again in a 'T' formation..

- each 'leg' of the 'T' thus quickly flips around 90° each time they reach BDC

- they lock back into position however in that reformed 'T' formation, ie. always 90° relative to the wheel / other weights

• thus because they're being accelerated up and around in the same direction the wheel's turning, this acceleration applies counter-acceleration back against the OB acceleration, cancelling much of it while sinking counter-momentum from the weight lift to OB G*t

Finally, if the lift speed is capped - as that of a practical mechanism might be - then so is the wheel speed, positive G-time eventually going to zero. Up to that capped lift speed however, one weight will always be rising faster than the other two are descending, hence a positive G-time asymmetry on the OB side, as well as constant OB torque from the 2:1 drop vs lift ratio..

I'll work out how to reduce this to a simple logic loop and then go through the usual motions of measuring and comparing I/O energies. Like i say, low expectations but might learn summink eh.. Bashically tho, because the motors are always performing the same lift (same weight, same angle) they're presumably always performing the same work? Thus net input energy may be the per-cycle constant times the no. of elapsed cycles, while output rotKE squares up with RPM, type stuff.. but ah we'll see eh..

[WaltzCee]

If your theory turns out to hold water, I shudder to think about the ramifications.

Do you suppose the theory could be expressed with nanotechnology manufacturing methods?

That might make a case for reality being holographic.

[whatzonstrat]

whatzonstrat
Hi, I have been following, or trying to follow ( with my limited knowledge of maths etc. ) the recent posts about using CF and sudden stops, as the driving force for a wheel.
Some conclusions have been drawn about using weights and gravity alone being futile in our wheel quest, and all the models I have built have proved this to be true.

The first question I need to ask is, when B pulled the pin or released the brake on his wheel, it started spontaneous rotation.
As there is no CF on a stationary wheel, there must have been off centre weights to start it rotating ( even a dumb arse model builder who’s never done a comp. sim. can work that out ! ). So as it starts to rotate, then CF comes into play, have I got that bit right ?
So my next question is about computer simms. As last year sometime you may remember I built the model from Ken B’s book of the Gera wheel, which he was convinced was a runner, but it was only a sim and didn’t work.
He was so convinced of the sim program replicating a real build that he wrote a book about it, based entirely on that assumption.

Is it possible on a simm , that either the input data has not been completely correct or the programm doesn’t in some way duplicate the movement that a model will do.
Dare I suggest such things to the smart arse simmers , coming from a mere model builder !
I’ve built some very complex wheel designs, and have been very surprised
at how they move in unexpected ways.
Some builds have used a fixed cog in the centre with other cogs bearinged on the wheel as planetary gears with weights mounted on them, producing very complex c.o.g changes as the wheel rotates, hard enough to follow the weights trajectory let alone work out the shifting c.o.g.

In the last maybe 30-40 years from Bessler’s time, our tech knowledge has increased exponentially.
So we know so much more now , than Bessler knew LOL
He had no exotic materials, no decent bearings, no computer Simms. So why the heck has none of us got a working wheel ?
It’s not hiding in my workshop, maybe in George Kunstlers, or A B Hammers, or Flechers, who knows. !
And the people of the time tell us it was so simple . Yea right !

By the way has anyone heard from Arthur, from Kiev in the Ukrain. He said he solved the wheel, but had no working model. I emailed him and got a reply , but haven’t heard from him since.

Who thinks they’re quite clever, and maybe on par with guys like Archimedes, or Galileo, or Leonardo, even Isaac Newton, I think Bessler made those guys look like total dickheads, in comparison.
Maybe we need a new pool of young brains, to come up with an answer.
They’re not going to come from the universities , cause the PM door gets shut in their face before they’ve had a chance to look around.
The professor or lecturer rams Newtons laws down their throat and who’s going to challenge Newton the “God” of science.
I did read that Newton once said he thought that Perpetual Motion could be possible,
But you won’t find that in the science books .
I’ve rambled on long enough, give me some answers, cut me some slack, oh wise ones. My blank wheel on very good bearings, awaits the fitting or special bits, to make it go round. I don’t care if it’s a cleverdick with a sim, or a dumb arse with a mechanical design, give me some torque, ( the rotating kind !! )
Dave

[Tarsier79]

Dave, I believe it is best to have a balanced approach. Simulations provide an excellent resource, used correctly of course. Any simulation needs to have a physical POP to be relevant. Many people get working sims that would never work in real life. It is mostly due to user error, or not understanding the sim world properly.

I am not sure why you would buy a book explaining how to build a PM machine from someone who had never actually built one himself? you should demand a refund. His book is a scam, giving false information without any proof, promising something it can never produce.

I am not sure categorizing people into 2 classes, with built in sarcasm will win you any points. But I could confidently say no-one is hiding a working design.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Dave,
I don't think that Newtons rules are incorrect, but they are incomplete and truncated for the normal user.

I will give you an example for the formula of energy E=m*g*h, that is the formula everyone is using.
But what I see is that this formula is incomplete, we deal with gravity, and gravity is always in minimum at least acting between two masses.
You can see that with the tides waves which occur between earth and moon.
Both objects move.
so the truncated formula E=m*g*h must be corrected to
E=m*g*h + mass of the earth*g*moving of the earth.
Because the mass of the earth is very big against a 1 kg weight and the movement of the earth is very low,
someone has truncated the formula to E=m*g*h

The truncation has an high impact on a development of a PM wheel. Every force is transferred to the big object earth.
So every wheel with a fix axle has this limitation, the force is trying to move the earth.

The consequence is to make an intermedia construction in a rotating frame.
You drive this intermedia construction without applying the force direct to the earth, the intermedia construction is driving the wheel.
An oscillation on an oscillation with the correct timing.

[thx4]

But I could confidently say no-one is hiding a working design.

I know at least one!
1st clue, he lives in Germany.
2nd, he knows almost everything about everything.

However, it is obvious that he will never show anything and for good reason, except his old pots and pans.

A++