Part Three is the Charm

[Fletcher]

IOW's B's. Prime Mover is NOT a simple machine, but is a physical structure / apparatus.

Given that all machines (at least those Wagner was referring to) are 'simple', then the Prime Mover Bessler hints at was probably not an added-on simple machine.

The Prime Mover is categorically not a simple machine imo Bill ! Not as defined as being applied to do Work by modifying force Efforts and Loads.

A Prime Mover is fundamentally a source of energy, such as heat or chemical or biological, etc

Yes, in this modern world based on energy economies we know of only Prime Movers that provide energy. Animal power, muscle power, burn wood, coal, oil, gas; water and wind (renewables) etc etc. Nuclear, and some others. The point is they supply energy which ultimately is converted into a motion of one kind or another. And this gets propagated thru the simple machine(s) to mechanical Output.

I don't think it was any different in B's. time, and all time. That is why I favour the momentum exchange theory between wheel and earth system I have theorized on previously - a source of energy for the excess impetus / momentum gain seen at the wheel. But not the energy sources you mention above, or Wagner mentions either.

As we already know, Bessler's MT designs might work if a Prime Mover (not just another simple machine) is employed to lift their weights.

True Bill ..

IMO, Bessler's problem can't be solved with a simple machine, or even a group of interacting simple machines. Bessler tells us that our work will be in vain without a Prime Mover.

Bessler (and history) makes a simple point that should seem obvious to anyone who has spent their life searching for the 'right' simple machine.

Quite Bill .. NO "simple machine", or combinations thereof, is fit for purpose. There is no 'right' simple machine. It's the right 'application' of a physical structure / apparatus - imo ! i.e. "teach the proper method of mechanical application".

[Fletcher]

Even Wagner,
wherever he is now, will have heard that one pound can cause the
raising of more than one pound. He writes that, to date, no one has
ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required
task. He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why? What if I
were to teach the proper method of mechanical application?Then
people would say: "Now I understand!”

Fletcher, you make a good point. There are many ways we could interpret his meaning. Bessler says he is right, but doesn't say what he is right about.

A chemical reaction both satisfies Physics and A misguided definition of PM.....It will revolve until the parts wear out.... (or the chemical component is no more/worn out). The yellow mercury?

I still hope and search for (probably foolishly) a mechanical solution.

Hi Kaine .. this should give you a little hope then lol ..

Quote from Wagner (W.) 2nd critique (the first minor one).

"Finally, Herr Orffyreus supposedly gets to the root of the matter when he asserts that children in the lane play with his perpetual motion or so-called superior force."

Clearly the implication is that the children generated and applied a physical force to play their game. And this is the force attributed by B. to be his excess impetus - preponderance, that W. says B. called his superior force, his Perpetual Motion force.

** Not sure too many children played in the street with chemistry sets, acids, altimeters, or mercury, .. or even gun-powder. Well not in my street anyway, maybe yours ! We tended to kick things, bat things, and throw things.

My point is that B. says its a 'force' seen in the playground - yet, it is not a "simple machine" of generate, modify, and use this force, imo. Something else kicks the can down the road rather than your swinging leg, but for all intents and purposes the can still moves all the same. Hence why he could say the force applied could be seen in the street, but not its root causation, imo. Crafty, as we all know too well.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher,
In your research, do you remember if Wagner, or maybe it was Bessler, (I can't remember which), said that the wheel resembled a grind stone? Or did I imagine it------------------------Sam

PS Maybe the kids were rolling some thing, down the street-----------------------

[Tarsier79]

.....Mr. Orffyreus was prepared with the excuse that this opening was left so that whenever something came undone inside the wheel he could fix it right away without having to remove the entire casing (how he always takes care to excuse himself with the fragility of the materials!); this, however, just cannot be. If something breaks on the other side, which is several ells away and has no such service hole, how would Herr Orffyreus be able to fix it through this tiny opening? The wheel currently set up in Merseburg, which is covered with linen cloth, has various openings ~~ that have been left around the axle and are bandaged over with pinned-on strips.

So the Draschwitz wheel only had one opening for repairs, but the Merseburg required holes all around for repairs/weight removal.

However many weights in the Draschwitz wheel, they all must have rotated past the hole at some point. This was not the case with the Merseburg wheel.

Finally, Herr Orffyreus supposedly gets to the root of the matter when he asserts that children in the lane play with his perpetual motion or so-called superior force.

If he used a chemical reaction, the reaction would have had to do something.. Expand or contract. He could be referring to the intermediate mechanical mechanism that transferred power to the OB.

[mryy]

Fletcher, I am going to combine some of your last few posts in this reply:

He writes that, to date, no one has ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required task. He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why? What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: "Now I understand!”

I interpreted the paragraph as W. is right about *others so far* not finding the right "Rüst-Zeuge". Only B. has found the right "Rüst-Zeuge".

Questions .. Is mryy's apparatus a simple machine (mechanical implement) or not a simple machine ? Does it satisfy both B. and W. claims ?

According to your one post about Simple Machine I would say my apparatus is a simple machine. Oh no! That's okay because I still feel confident -- for now -- about ??theOne$$. :)

"Finally, Herr Orffyreus supposedly gets to the root of the matter when he asserts that children in the lane play with his perpetual motion or so-called superior force."

When I was in grade school you know what me and my playground buddies and other kids often played? Marbles. As you know my prime movement involves flying weights of low mass. For the past few days I have been thinking that they need to be the size of ... marbles! I believe the flying weights are the superior force or pm elements to which B. is referring.

Btw earlier I was having a bit of fun at Mr. Wabbit's expense. Apparently B. wasn't too impressed by W. I'd imagine B. must have taken offense to W.'s seeming curtness in their first meeting:

"I hadn't given any thought to the possibility that Wagner might want to cause me harm when he came to visit me at Draschwitz. I received him warmly, but our acquaintance lasted just as long as it took him to swallow his breakfast. I hadn't seen him before, and I haven't seen him since." AP 289 (Collins)

[Fletcher]

Fletcher,
In your research, do you remember if Wagner, or maybe it was Bessler, (I can't remember which), said that the wheel resembled a grind stone? Or did I imagine it------------------------Sam

PS Maybe the kids were rolling some thing, down the street-----------------------

JC's DT .. Consider now a disc or narrow cylinder revolving about its horizontal axis rather in the manner of a grindstone; if you call this a ‘wheel’ then that is also a description of the main part of my machine. This wheel consists of >>>

R Gould's "Oddities" .. For as a grind-stone may be called a wheel, so may the principal part of my machine be named. >>>

And there are bad translations of upper and lower grindstone's internally within the wheel etc. They are complete bollocks and disregard them imo (consider the source). Clearly the grindstone is describing the wheel on its stands as you look over to it. The context of the complete DT paragraph shows this to be the case.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher, I am going to combine some of your last few posts in this reply:

He writes that, to date, no one has ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required task. He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why? What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: "Now I understand!”

I interpreted the paragraph as W. is right about *others so far* not finding the right "Rüst-Zeuge". Only B. has found the right "Rüst-Zeuge".

I've explored that angle before also .. but I can't get past that word "EVER" - past and present tense - B. did have a "mechanical ""arrangement"""" when W. wrote that. Your machine-tool/implement/armament.

"Finally, Herr Orffyreus supposedly gets to the root of the matter when he asserts that children in the lane play with his perpetual motion or so-called superior force."

When I was in grade school you know what me and my playground buddies and other kids often played? Marbles. As you know my prime movement involves flying weights of low mass. For the past few days I have been thinking that they need to be the size of ... marbles! I believe the flying weights are the superior force or pm elements to which B. is referring.

[/quote]

Yes, quite a few think marbles is a good candidate. Personally I think it is the hoop tapping game to roll them along. If one were truly inspired they may think it is the spinning top game found in the TP ;7)

[mryy]

Fletcher, I am going to combine some of your last few posts in this reply:

He writes that, to date, no one has ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required task. He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why? What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: "Now I understand!”

I interpreted the paragraph as W. is right about *others so far* not finding the right "Rüst-Zeuge". Only B. has found the right "Rüst-Zeuge".

I've explored that angle before also .. but I can't get past that word "EVER" - past and present tense - B. did have a "mechanical ""arrangement"""" when W. wrote that. Your machine-tool/implement/armament.

I'll chalk it to translation and the reading of it, a subjective endeavor. According to the definition you posted of simple machines my prime mover is a machine and it may well be. I do think it is also bi-level structure housing two sets of weights. You assert that the prime mover is not a machine -- and I am not agreeing or disagreeing here -- so the assertion needs to be tested eventually.

"Finally, Herr Orffyreus supposedly gets to the root of the matter when he asserts that children in the lane play with his perpetual motion or so-called superior force."

When I was in grade school you know what me and my playground buddies and other kids often played? Marbles. As you know my prime movement involves flying weights of low mass. For the past few days I have been thinking that they need to be the size of ... marbles! I believe the flying weights are the superior force or pm elements to which B. is referring.

Yes, quite a few think marbles is a good candidate. Personally I think it is the hoop tapping game to roll them along. If one were truly inspired they may think it is the spinning top game found in the TP ;7)

OK. Hope and stick game sounds very possible as the word "lane" is mentioned in the same sentence. When my flying weight strikes the 2:00 lever it is behaving like an invisible stick tapping the hoop. So I imagine...

[Fletcher]

I should clarify what I think there mryy ..

The Prime Mover IS a machine ,,, in the sense that WE KNOW it is a physical structure or apparatus i.e. made of parts to make a whole.

But it is NOT a "Simple Machine" per se, because it does NOT USE/EMPLOY ANY mechanical leverage techniques, that is a functional characteristic of ALL/EVERY "Simple Machines".

So while it is a physical machine it is not a physical simple machine by definition, imo.

And yes, I intend to real-world test the assertion with my mech. In the mean time I build a case for its existence.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher, you did it, you found it, I didn't imagine it!
When I first read that, I thought, that's craziness. How could his wheel possibly, be like a grindstone? Now, I'm thinking; it was like a grindstone. I.E., two rollers swapping places. At least it would seam to support my latest bull sh*t theory, (for what ever that's worth)------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

mryy, Maybe you are right about a hoop. Maybe that's what the kids were playing with, rolling it down the street---------Sam
PS No, I'm wrong, Fletcher suggested that.

[thx4]

Yes, quite a few think marbles is a good candidate. Personally I think it is the hoop tapping game to roll them along. If one were truly inspired they may think it is the spinning top game found in the TP ;7)

Les billes me semble un bon candidat surtout pour l'époque.
L'explication du moteur est simple, et j'aimerai bien que quelqu'un me dise que ça ne marchera pas, mais je ne vois pas comment, lol.
De toute les façons vous verrez quelques choses bientôt dans ce sens.
Explication du moteur:
Si vous avez un poids qui est réparti sur la moitie de la circonférence d'une roue (et seulement dans ce cas, sinon ça ne marchera pas). cette roue n'est pas la roue que l'on pouvait voir, c'est une roue intérieur couverte de moitié par des billes, le fait d'utiliser des billes rend possible la possibilité de voir une masse s'articuler et de s'entretenir (au début je n'y croyais pas), j'ai changé d'avis depuis que je suis parti en réalisation. il n'y a rien de magique, c'est un problème d'économie lol.
Si vous mettez 100 billes de 100 gr soit 10 k sur la moitie d'une circonférence, dite moi comment 10 kg ne pourrait se réinitialiser en soulevant 100gr.
Encore une fois il faut le faire, mais je ne vois pas d'autre système logique, qui ne viole rien mais qui selon moi est un système qui est probablement autonome, mais ça je l'ai vu après.
Dans tous les cas se sera difficile de faire plus simple en raisonnement, c'est plus compliqué mécaniquement..
A++

Marbles seems to me a good candidate especially for the time.
The explanation of the engine is simple, and I'd love for someone to tell me it won't work, but I don't see how, lol.
Anyway you'll see some things soon in this direction.
Explanation of the engine:
If you have a weight that is distributed over half the circumference of a wheel (and only then, otherwise it won't work). this wheel is not the wheel that we could see, it is an inner wheel covered by half by balls, the fact of using balls makes it possible to see a mass articulate and to maintain itself (at the beginning I did not believe in it), I changed my mind since I went in realization. there is nothing magic, it is a problem of economy lol.
If you put 100 balls of 100 gr or 10 k on half of a circumference, tell me how 10 kg could not be reset by lifting 100gr.
Again it has to be done, but I don't see any other logical system, which doesn't violate anything but in my opinion is a system that is probably autonomous, but that I saw after.
In any case it will be difficult to make it simpler in reasoning, it is more complicated mechanically.
A++

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher,
Don't you see? The rollers are the prime mover. It all fits. The so called prime mover was similar to the hoop, that kids played with. It was similar to a grind stone or narrow wheel,(disk). It was also similar to a pulley, with a groove in the rim, to run on a rail to guide them. They must have been as much as four feet in diameter, but thin. They consisted of many pieces of lead, and were very heavy. The reason for the large diameter was to get more radius, (on the wheel / more torque), without increasing the offset. Too much offset could risk bottom heaviness. This also explains why the wheels tended to be quite large in diameter.

In operation, one would take up a position farther out, the other one nearer to the axle, later they swap places. They would tend to roll in on the up side and out on the down side, and that's your prime mover; if I'm right that is-----------------------Sam

Note: Offset Is the distance separating the two rollers.

[Fletcher]

Go for it Sam .. the danger to each and every one of us (including me) is confirmation bias i.e. seeing what we want to see in clues etc. Especially as we're working up a theory on the internal mechanics.

I try to work backwards - find the energy - find the Prime Mover - find why it self-moves.

Good luck.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher,
I still don't know if I'm right. Building these wheels out of iron, is a real SOB! I'm having trouble with the rollers. They are like herding cows, they don't want to go straight. I would like to add, in my self defense. I figured out the rollers first, then; I began to realized the meaning of the clues, (maybe). Also, the rollers will drive the wheel in either direction, which was the biggest trick of all--------------------Sam