THE wheel fatal flaw that no one notice

[Fletcher]

What can we make the Prime Mover from?

After all analysis done so far we find no mechanical combination that acts like a Prime Mover.

There has not been a dynamic interaction of mechanical components to OU.

So excluding both the physical and the structural motion; one is left with what?

Regards

FWIW Agor .. it is my serious contention that the Toy's Page is NOT a parts catalogue for a mechanical OB wheel, that only with a bit of a discerning mind, imagination, some experience, and some basic skills, can be recombined into a self-sustaining wheel. There is no matrix of possibilities to render that will result in ANY self-moving wheel in that page, IMO.

I believe it is the parts catalogue for the illusive PRIME MOVER ! - with some symbolism thrown in for good measure (and confusion).

Within a rendering of the parts will exist a mechanical device that does confer the ability for just about ANY ordinary weight-shifting OB wheel to be a "runner", with its inclusion and application. Neither the wheel subassembly, nor the Prime Mover apparatus addition, break the Laws of Mechanics and Newton's Laws of Physics, but neatly sidestep them to an alternative paradigm in terms of Laws of Thermodynamics, IMO.

Best -f

[spinner361]

Fletcher, it is really none of my business if you believe me or not.

[Tarsier79]

Spinner, what specifically were you proposing? Just that you could combine 2 MTs into a runner?

As far as energy math goes, none of these combined will work. Bessler said "with a discerning mind..." He hid clues to the prime mover, perhaps in the toys, perhaps littered across MT.

[spinner361]

I am not ready to talk about this yet. Please pardon my ego and impatience. I am sorry.

[Fletcher]

As far as energy math goes, none of these combined will work.

Bessler said "with a discerning mind..." He hid clues to the prime mover, perhaps in the toys, perhaps littered across MT.

FWIW .. IMO definitely in the Toy's Page. Littered across MT also very likely.

Case in point - B. gives very favourable mention about the use of SB's, particularly in MT's 38 and 41 (we are all familiar with the language and his strong promotion of them, if used differently). Yet, as mechanical temporary OB wheels the MT's 38 and 41 SB's shown are perfectly adequate mechanical additions and functions.

In MT38 they are pinned at the rim and are cross-wheel connected, so that they shift their combined CoM to aid the imbalance from the shifting lever-weights associated with them. In MT41 they are pinned at the first node to expand and contract and via some unseen means (probably a rope and pulley system) lift axle weights upwards to be top-heavy. In MT41 they are not remotely drawn carefully or accurately, both in number of segments and relative scale when open or closed. The impression I get is that he just didn't care how they looked, it just wasn't important.

My Conclusion .. Their purposes and actions shown in MT's 38 and 41 were incidental to their true purpose, function, and application in a real "runner". And of course they feature in the Toy's Page in various forms; so to conform to my theory they are part of the Prime Mover assembly, and their function is to simply open and close on cue !

SB's imo usually are just simply linear leverage devices.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher, it is really none of my business if you believe me or not.

Spinner .. for me it is not a matter of belief in one person, or his ideas, verses another. This discussion board for me is ideologically a platform for a contest of ideas about how B's. wheels might have worked. And by engaging in that process, and our own experiments, we can eventually sort the wheat from the chaff and find a viable mechanical answer to that question. Of course ideas can change over time as some lines of inquiry are eliminated or dead-ended. Some never die and are resurrected over and over.

For me I recognize that the traditional mechanical weight-shifting OB wheel philosophy (gravity-only wheel) needs to be augmented in some way, to overcome its natural tendency to decelerate and stop revolving (reasons mostly known). In general terms they need either a periodic injection of energy .. or .. they need a periodic input force to accelerate and accumulate momentum and RKE.

I personally rule out energy input as the purpose and function of the Prime Mover apparatus, imo. This leaves a periodic force input, or temporary manipulation of angular momentum conditions within a 'runner' that is the raison d'être and is at the heart of a 'true runner'. IMO.

[spinner361]

That makes sense, Fletcher. You think things through very thoroughly.

[Fletcher]

Sometimes I may do, but the acid test to whether it makes sense to anyone else is the quality of the rebuttal and counter-argument.

[agor95]

... the quality of the rebuttal and counter-argument.

Slightly adversarial phrase. Alas it fits base reality.

What would be useful is an understanding of a persons perspective.
Their view point so to speak and then looking around the landscape for a way forward.

The main property of Bessler's Wheel was an increase in momentum.
Saying that the only known out of system phenomena is the effect of gravity.

Not to labour on the point gravity is conservative.

Also both inertia and gravity's fundamental cause has not been proved.

So the possible electromagnetic affects available are gravity, structural stress and inertia.

The first two appear to be conservative. The last causes energy transfer and energy loss.

You find one self painting the landscape until you are in a corner.

Well I am looking at the corner. Yes banging my head and feeling a little concussed.

Waite don't masses decelerate in the vertical direction in the lower part of the wheel and
then accelerate against gravity in the other lower quarter?

The masses are accelerated and decelerated horizontally as well!

If energy is being lost above then were is the energy being gain to balance it out; as we see in flywheels?

Could a Primer Mover exist to increase the gain and reduce the lost?

Well I am off for a pill for this headache.

[spinner361]

Sometimes I may do, but the acid test to whether it makes sense to anyone else is the quality of the rebuttal and counter-argument.

That makes sense too. I think that a lack of response may sometimes also be an indicator.

[agor95]

That makes sense too. I think that a lack of response may sometimes also be an indicator.

There is the issue of lack of response meaning 1. agree and understand & 2. not interested.

Imagine all registered members responding with a post as either one of the above.
We would be snowed with posts. Which in a way is appropriate in the Northern Hemisphere.

Best have responses from type 1 with forward additional contributions.

Regards

[Fletcher]

... the quality of the rebuttal and counter-argument.

Slightly adversarial phrase. Alas it fits base reality.

What would be useful is an understanding of a persons perspective.

Their view point so to speak and then looking around the landscape for a way forward.

The main property of Bessler's Wheel was an increase in momentum.

Saying that the only known out of system phenomena is the effect of gravity.

Not to labour on the point gravity is conservative.

..........

here is the issue of lack of response meaning 1. agree and understand & 2. not interested. 3. do not understand

I've been consistently at this for over 20 years. In that time I've seen all sorts of people here, some incredibly motivated, talented, educated, and smart, all trying to unpick the web that B. set. With no success, along with the thousands before them also trying to build a self-moving weight-shifting OB wheel.

To be blunt .. self-sustaining weight-shifting OB wheels bark like a dog because gravity force is conservative. That didn't stop me exploring some type or another and going back to the same well for decades. Mainly from lack of alternative lines of investigation and the pull of them was seductive and strong.

A history of failure to overcome that conservatism also caused me to think about other possibilities, however remote they might seem.

And I kept coming back to B's. words in the forward to MT - "no illustration by itself contains a description of the motion: however, taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them".

And that caused me to dwell on his comments to MT's 44 and 48 :- BASIC ball transfer systems for temporary OB - they very obviously were not ever going to be viable "runners" without the addition of some mechanically unique assembly. B's. unique assembly, that must also be contained in MT somewhere for the discerning mind to find the motion and eventually a movement, when combined with other illustrations.

I recognise that everyone must walk their own path, and learn their own lessons. This post may go some way to explaining why I personally find it very difficult to get enthused about and motivated by any attempt to wrangle another temporary weight-shifting OB wheel into permanency.

It can be made self-sustaining (self-moving / permanent animation) with the addition of a Prime Mover ! And for me the hunt is on for, and only about, that illusive and hidden mechanical Prime Mover assembly.

[Fletcher]

Leafy titled this topic ...

"THE wheel fatal flaw that no one notice"

I think everyone will by now know (and maybe understand why I think this) that 'the wheel fatal flaw that no one notices' is that the usual Weight-Shifting OB Wheels (OF ANY TYPE) are conservative dogs. And our unwillingness to accept this "truism".

The trap was set long ago (well before Bessler) and we continue to take the bait.

B. wasn't immune to it either, until he had his rare dream attributed to God, after which he was able to think in new directions and realize "why ALL the others had been wrong". MT shows his history of research.

His epiphany moment took him into new territory beyond mere imbalance, and to a deeper understanding of the problem, which finally he could then mechanically solve. IMO.

[SHADOW]

Bonjour Fletcher
je suis ok pour un prime moteur mais pourquoi celui-ci ne se suffirait-il pas à lui même pour faire tourner la roue? tout au moins pour une demonstration.
J.B

Hello Fletcher
I’m okay with an engine bonus, but why can’t this one be enough on its own to turn the wheel? At least for a demonstration.
J.B

[Fletcher]

Bonjour Fletcher
je suis ok pour un prime moteur mais pourquoi celui-ci ne se suffirait-il pas à lui même pour faire tourner la roue? tout au moins pour une demonstration.
J.B

Hello Fletcher
I’m okay with an engine bonus, but why can’t this one be enough on its own to turn the wheel? At least for a demonstration.
J.B

Hi Shadow / J.B.

"Hi Fletcher
I'm ok with a prime mover but why shouldn't it be enough to turn the wheel by itself? At least for a demonstration."

Good question .. one I have asked myself at different times. There are possibly two different answers that make some sense to me.

1. The Prime Mover assembly / apparatus couldn't operate alone (be independent) and self-turn continuously, and had to be coupled to a generic ancillary OOB wheel for the whole to function correctly - in which case B. could rightly claim to have solved the age old and widely sort answer to the dilemma of the self-moving OOB wheel. This also suggests that the temporary imbalance of the secondary system was still an important function internally and dynamically and could not be done without. The two-system feedback loop hypothesis.

2. The Prime Mover assembly / apparatus could operate alone (be independent) and self-turn continuously, without being coupled to a generic secondary ancillary OOB wheel - but this would perhaps have less visual wow factor, and mechanical kudos, as it was an incredibly simple construction which would be laid bare without distracting 'bells and whistles'.

I tend to go with Ockham's Razor on this. That it could be formatted into a wheel proxy by itself, and self-turn (i.e. accelerate and gain momentum) without the need for a generic OOB sub-system.

In-fact my experiments will probably be centered around something we all know very well. A fixed wheel background with a single ball mass attached at the rim just past 12 o'cl to turn clock-wise. IOW's a single pendulum format. And as the pendulum slows to near stationary around 11.30 o'cl on the ascent theoretically the Prime Mover assembly will nudge / kick / accelerate it up and over 12 o'cl to begin the descent process again but with some residual momentum greater than the none it started with when released from its standing start. I figure a single pendulum and one Prime-Mover should adequately prove the principle. If more power and speed is required multiples can be added. And I can't see why a single radial stationary ball mass pendulum should behave any different from ordinary OOB weight-shifting systems that create temporary torque. At least not for demonstration purposes. It could be that with some subtle differences the Prime-Mover itself could self-turn without any further eye-candy.

You may have other thoughts to share on the subject ?!