4 or 2? deGravesand's argument favoring PM

[ArchCalc]

Screenshot

[Tarsier79]

So where is equation (2), the screen shot appears to show (4). Where is the source document?

It is impossible to comment on something without the full information.

[WaltzCee]

In 1721, 's Gravesande became involved in a public controversy over whether the German inventor Johann Bessler, known as Councillor Orffyreus, had created a genuine perpetual motion machine. 's Gravesande at first argued for the feasibility of perpetual motion based on the conservation of the scalar quantity mv (mass multiplied by speed), which he erroneously believed was implied by Newtonian mechanics.[5] However, in 1722 he published the results of a series of experiments in which brass balls were dropped from varying heights onto a soft clay surface. He found that a ball with twice the speed of another would leave an indentation four times as deep, from which he concluded that the correct expression for the "live force" of a body in motion (currently called "kinetic energy") is proportional to mv2.[5]

[ArchCalc]

So I've noticed that if a weight is turned loose to fall on the descending side, the opposite happens. There's just as suddenly more weight on the ascending side, and the wheel goes backwards from the intended direction.
I think this is an argument in support of Bessler's connectedness principle.
Falling weights is no good.

[daxwc]

There is a section on vis viva argument.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.3097.pdf

[ArchCalc]

Thanks daxwc for finding this link. It is where I took the first post about Gravesand but couldn't find it again when asked.
So it pretty much rules out falling weights, and therefore will save a lot of time by avoiding that route.
I don't think Bessler was a sham though.
He had something...
He met and disproved every criticism.

[eccentrically1]

So if falling weights are ruled out, what were his weights doing? What is left? His weights were _______ _____ ______ __________ _________.

[daxwc]

"It also emerged that Orffyreus’s wife had already informed a government official of her husband’s
deception, but had been angrily instructed to keep quiet."

Not sure I heard that before.

[ArchCalc]

@eccentric.. coming together.

[thx4]

Pas de poids lol, on est très proche du n'importe quoi !!!
Il y a bien des poids, c'est leur mobilité qui reste à expliquer, d'ailleurs le seul point trouble, c'est que ces poids peuvent être remplacé par un liquide quelconque , beaucoup plus facile en mouvement mais très compliqué à fabriquer.
A++

No weight lol, we are very close to the nonsense!!!
There are indeed weights, it's their mobility that remains to be explained, besides the only troubled point is that these weights can be replaced by any liquid, much easier in movement but very complicated to manufacture.
A++

[daxwc]

Ecc1: So if falling weights are ruled out, what were his weights doing? What is left? His weights were _______ _____ ______ __________ _________.

"At present, as far as
I'm concerned, anyone who wants can go on about the wonderful
doings of these weights, alternately gravitating to the centre and
climbing back up again, for I can't put the matter more clearly." - Bessler AP

[daanopperman]

Hi all ,
JB would not just give any sence making clues away . He would not lie but twist the clues so that using them as he intended you will travel the broad road
opened eyes on your own misunderstanding of said clues .
My understanding of "gravitating to the center" does not mean the weights go from bottom to centre , nor from top to center , for wich one is he refering to , the bottom weight or the top weight , or both weights , wich would defeat any gain either would have over the other .
The only center I see is the center of the wheel in the horizontal plane , iow from left to right and right to left . but not as you would think sliding from rim to center , that is what JB WANTS you to think . If I put a pin on the rim at 9 and turn the wheel the pin will "gravitate" from nine to twelve (wheel center ) , and "gravitate " all the way to 3 o"clock and as the wheel revolve this gravitating keeps happening as long as the wheel is in motion .

2 pins (weights) oposing would ballance , if either of them is advanced/retarded while the wheel is revolving it would cause a imediate imbalance between the LH and RH sides of the wheel .

If you put 2 weights at nine , and 2 weights at 3 , ( pairs of weights , these 2 work together ) the wheel is in balance ( provided the wheel balances without the weights ) then parting any pair along the rim , (not closer to the wheel center , the weights is fixed on arms pivoting on the wheel center) will
cause a imediate imbalance/overbalance .

Now If a comuter in a moving train is stationary (sitting) he has no effect on the motion of the train , but as soon as he starts moving to the back of the train , the train speeds up a tiny amount , likewise , if he moves forwards (in direction of travel) the train slows down a tiny bit .
Now this comuter have a friend and does everything opposite , he moves forward , friend moves backwards , there is no effect on the motion of the train , but these 2 friends is also conneted such that if the front one is stopped in relation to the moving train the one in the back will increase in velocity relative to the velocity lost by the front friend , yet there will be no effect on the velocity of the train . This exercice is just to show the effect of retarding one weight and excellerating the other does not impinge on the wheel velocity , if the wheel velocity does not change there is no energy taken from the rotating wheel , but the energy comes from the kinetic energy of the 2 weights themselfs .

So weights does not leave their position relative to the wheel axes , at no time is any weight closer to the center of rotation or further away from the
center of the wheel , they just migrate away from each other and back towards each other using only their own kinetic energy . On the rotating wheel ,
any weight rotating along with the wheel has kinetic energy proportional to the velocity of the wheel .

I also think that a storksbill , not used as we think radially , but fixed to the rim when opening and closing will move , one end retarding while same time the other end will excellerate in direction of rotation .

Daan

[Sam Peppiatt]

What if the weights were rolling? I.E., not falling. Maybe there were two rollers, side by side. Alternating; one trying to roll up hill / climbing back up and, the other one rolling down / gravitating to the center. Connected some how----------------- possibly with a spring---------------------------Sam

[Tarsier79]

If two balanced weights at 3 move apart, there will be no imbalance, no acceleration or deceleration. Whenever you balance a weight so it takes "no energy" to move, it also returns no energy.

[daanopperman]

Tarsier ,

If I have 2 weights at 3 and 2 weights at 9, in a balanced state , and I move the 2 at 3 apart , one ccw and the other cw , you will end up having 2 weights at 9 and one weight each at 12 and 6 is it not so , iow I will have all the mass of the 2 weights at 9 giving ccw torque for the 2 weights that was at 3 is effectively in the center of the wheel . As the wheel rotate ccw , the 2 weights that was at 9 will end up at the bottom of the wheel , this is where the kinetic energy of the 2 weights can be used to separate them and destroy the overbalance they gave on the lh side of the wheel , while the same happen to the opposide set of weights wich will now be moved together .
See the very last drawing in MT , but DO NOT and this is not what I am saying , use it as JB depicted it's use .

If you have ONE crossbar connecting the oposing sets of weights ...........

Daan .