Part Three is the Charm

[Leafy]

Let’s analyze the system.

Suppose at 6:00 you use 100 joules to shoot the mass to 2:00.

The mass departing 6:00 with 100 joules of kinetic energy.

The mass arrived at 2:00 with 99 joules of KE and 1 joules of GPE (because it is higher now).

The mass 99 joules of KE is transfer to and flip the lever.

The lever now have 99 joules of GPE.

The lever 99 joules of GPE + 1 joules of the ball GPE = 100 joules of GPE.

When the lever and ball fall from 2:00 to 6:00, we can extract 100 joules of energy.

No gain.

However, when the ball departs 6:00, it recoil and push the wheel with 100 joules worth

When it arrived at 2:00 and flip the lever, it recoil and push the wheel with 99 joules worth.

The wheel gained speed and energy although no gain in GPE.

[Leafy]

On a note:

Even though the system is OU, it won’t start itself because of the OB.

You need a down payment of 100 joules to start the system. Otherwise, it just stall.

This is what I meant by Bessler 360 starting.

[mryy]

We all start our learning somewhere.

I am a bit unhappy I dismantled that build, or didn't even take a video. It worked mostly like the sim I posted at the time, the large weight climbing upwards around 1:30. Twas a beautiful sight......

The build didn't work ultimately. Sims can only show so much. You were unhappy as you became a little entrenched.

Tethered or not, just making something "untethered" doesn't make it work. You still have to deal with the fundamental forces. To quote Bessler, your "fat lazy horses" are lazing about on the wrong side of your wheel. The effort they put in to plow the field barely scratched the surface. The cat played with the juicy mice, but didn't kill them so they got away.

The important thing isn't where we start. It is how we evolve our thinking, and where that leads us. I am not perfect.

I look forward to seeing you test your design. Building in real life is a good learning experience. Learning what to build to test a specific idea is also a bit of a feat. If you understand what you see, you have a successful test.

I openly invite criticism of my design which I am offering here. At least substantiate one's thoughts so I may ponder and respond. Snarky and presumptuous comments ain't it.

[mryy]

I think the design is deceptive to the inexperienced mind , imagine removing the additional "flying" weights on the right and you should find the common ob wheel with not enough torque to reset , now imagine just having the "flying" weights and you should find that you also cannot reset the weights back to the top , add both together as one and you should find that neither of the 2 adds anything to the other , 2 negatives added makes it worse not better , thats my oppinion on it as it stands , but good luck further forward to mryy.

And what if two negatives produce a positive? If you read B. comments of the various MT drawings the ones that show any promise are mentioned needing a prime mover or some additional structure to run. The prime mover is never described as a self-sustaining, independent entity. There appears to be some form of synergistic host-parasite relationship in B. wheels.

"Further demonstrations regarding the possibility and impossibility of perpetual motion

NB. May 1, 1733. Due to the arrest, I burned and buried all papers that prove the possibility. However, I have left all demonstrations and experiments, since it would be difficult for anybody to see or learn anything about a perpetual motion from them or to decide whether there was any truth in them because 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."
- Johann Bessler, cover page of Maschinen Tractate (Collins Translation)

So B. is stating that combining various drawings -- things are probably going to be more complex now -- those nonrunner designs (negatives) wheel will produce a runner (positive).

[johannesbender]

Mryy , i dont neccesarily agree with your oppinion on that matter , because adding 2 systems each independently short on energy together , would not create extra energy , it is fundementaly wrong in my opinion.

However , taking some various things or rather principles that negates problems , together , avoiding problems and such , for instance something that ultimetly overcomes the energy need problem might sound closer to what Bessler meant rather than the former imo , although im not Bessler and cant say what he meant .

If you had a system that supplemented itself plus the other energy wasting system plus more for output , yeah sure i would have agreed with that.

[mryy]

On a note:

Even though the system is OU, it won’t start itself because of the OB.

You need a down payment of 100 joules to start the system. Otherwise, it just stall.

This is what I meant by Bessler 360 starting.

Responding to this and your previous post together, your energy analysis makes all the more sense to me if we are discussing designs where the weights are continuously in contact with some part of the wheel. My theory is that the flying weights hitting the 2:00 lever *reset* the system by being free for a very brief moment -- when they are in midair. Once they land they inject independent energy to the system. I believe this is what separates my concept from MT drawings and others. Ofc it's a theory and still needs to be tested.

Like B. wheels mine starts from an imbalanced state with the lever holding the topmost red weight at about the 11:00 position before the wheel is released. Furthermore the levers (master and slave) are pre-swung from 3:00 to 6:00 at the initial state. There's been some discussion of Angular Momentum (AM) here. This is my opinion: The initial AM gain of the wheel and levers are the movers.

A net torque exists right before the wheel was released to spin. Net torque came about from gravity acting on the wheel's unequaled sides. Upon release the wheel gained AM which is not conserved. The same AM produced Rotational Kinetic Energy (RKE) which is conserved paradoxically, for RKE equals the Potential Energy (PE) of the initial state just before release.

There is also the gain of AM from the pre-swung weighted levers (in my design) on the descending side before release. Again, AM is not conserved. The AM produced RKE as the levers swung down. The fulcrum spring stores this RKE as PE to be converted back later to RKE (and AM) at 6:00, where a weight is launched up to the 2:00. IOW the AM is "cycled".

[Leafy]

Responding to this and your previous post together, your energy analysis makes all the more sense to me if we are discussing designs where the weights are continuously in contact with some part of the wheel. My theory is that the flying weights hitting the 2:00 lever *reset* the system by being free for a very brief moment -- when they are in midair. Once they land they inject independent energy to the system. I believe this is what separates my concept from MT drawings and others. Ofc it's a theory and still needs to be tested.

Like B. wheels mine starts from an imbalanced state with the lever holding the topmost red weight at about the 11:00 position before the wheel is released. Furthermore the levers (master and slave) are pre-swung from 3:00 to 6:00 at the initial state. There's been some discussion of Angular Momentum (AM) here. This is my opinion: The initial AM gain of the wheel and levers are the movers.

A net torque exists right before the wheel was released to spin. Net torque came about from gravity acting on the wheel's unequaled sides. Upon release the wheel gained AM which is not conserved. The same AM produced Rotational Kinetic Energy (RKE) which is conserved paradoxically, for RKE equals the Potential Energy (PE) of the initial state just before release.

There is also the gain of AM from the pre-swung weighted levers (in my design) on the descending side before release. Again, AM is not conserved. The AM produced RKE as the levers swung down. The fulcrum spring stores this RKE as PE to be converted back later to RKE (and AM) at 6:00, where a weight is launched up to the 2:00. IOW the AM is "cycled".

It’s true that any moving part in the wheel could consider the same scenario, and there are…a lot of moving parts in this design”. So you are probably right. I can only understand the ball shooting part so I can’t say for the rest of the system.

[mryy]

Mryy , i dont neccesarily agree with your oppinion on that matter , because adding 2 systems each independently short on energy together , would not create extra energy , it is fundementaly wrong in my opinion.

However , taking some various things or rather principles that negates problems , together , avoiding problems and such , for instance something that ultimetly overcomes the energy need problem might sound closer to what Bessler meant rather than the former imo , although im not Bessler and cant say what he meant .

If you had a system that supplemented itself plus the other energy wasting system plus more for output , yeah sure i would have agreed with that.

In nature symbiotic relationships (of the mutualistic kind) exist all around. Didn't B. described his wheel as a "living machine"? :)

I was speaking generally about combining features in nonrunners to produce runners. It could well be what you said about utilizing things/principles that negate problems. Ultimately the product of all this is a working wheel.

[johannesbender]

Mryy , i dont neccesarily agree with your oppinion on that matter , because adding 2 systems each independently short on energy together , would not create extra energy , it is fundementaly wrong in my opinion.

However , taking some various things or rather principles that negates problems , together , avoiding problems and such , for instance something that ultimetly overcomes the energy need problem might sound closer to what Bessler meant rather than the former imo , although im not Bessler and cant say what he meant .

If you had a system that supplemented itself plus the other energy wasting system plus more for output , yeah sure i would have agreed with that.

In nature symbiotic relationships (of the mutualistic kind) exist all around. Didn't B. described his wheel as a "living machine"? :)

Honestly i cannot answer you , i cannot recall Bessler ever writing that , can you provide a reference ?

I was speaking generally about combining features in nonrunners to produce runners. It could well be what you said about utilizing things/principles that negate problems. Ultimately the product of all this is a working wheel.

Well yes im not saying exploring combinations of positive features are bad or such , but that if you and your friend each had to pay 5 $ for an entry fee to a movie , but each had 1 $ only , even if you added your money together , it would nor cover the entry fee even for one person , most of these things ie. The common ob wheel , simple machines etc are well described energy wise and no combination of them being each under unity would produce ou , the fundemental loss of energy ie. Laws of mechanical energy and ie. Conservation of energy in each is what prevents it , if however something was found that negates that , then yes .

[WaltzCee]

. .. .. .
The build didn't work ultimately. Sims can only show so much. You were unhappy as you became a little entrenched.

. .. .. .

I openly invite criticism of my design which I am offering here. At least substantiate one's thoughts so I may ponder and respond. Snarky and presumptuous comments ain't it.

an interesting thing a SIM can show is hook it up to a motor. Spin it up to 300 or 400 rpm.

Does anything move or does that fic·ti·tious force of nature have everything pinned to the nearest outside wall?

Not trying to be snarky. I'll keep you posted when I'm in snarky mode.

[mryy]

Mryy , i dont neccesarily agree with your oppinion on that matter , because adding 2 systems each independently short on energy together , would not create extra energy , it is fundementaly wrong in my opinion.

However , taking some various things or rather principles that negates problems , together , avoiding problems and such , for instance something that ultimetly overcomes the energy need problem might sound closer to what Bessler meant rather than the former imo , although im not Bessler and cant say what he meant .

If you had a system that supplemented itself plus the other energy wasting system plus more for output , yeah sure i would have agreed with that.

In nature symbiotic relationships (of the mutualistic kind) exist all around. Didn't B. described his wheel as a "living machine"? :)

Honestly i cannot answer you , i cannot recall Bessler ever writing that , can you provide a reference ?

I was speaking generally about combining features in nonrunners to produce runners. It could well be what you said about utilizing things/principles that negate problems. Ultimately the product of all this is a working wheel.

Well yes im not saying exploring combinations of positive features are bad or such , but that if you and your friend each had to pay 5 $ for an entry fee to a movie , but each had 1 $ only , even if you added your money together , it would nor cover the entry fee even for one person , most of these things ie. The common ob wheel , simple machines etc are well described energy wise and no combination of them being each under unity would produce ou , the fundemental loss of energy ie. Laws of mechanical energy and ie. Conservation of energy in each is what prevents it , if however something was found that negates that , then yes .

"The causative principle of the movement is its ponderous impetus. It runs according to 'preponderance' and turns everything else alone with it. On one side it is heavy and full, on the other side empty and light. It must revolve through my principle of 'excess weight', at first slow, then gradually increasing its temp to the accompaniment of a likewise increasing noise caused by the movement of its internal weights, resulting in a living machine. These weights are themselves the perpetual motion device, the 'essential constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force so long as they keep away from the center of gravity." (Collins translation)

I understand your theater admission analogy. BUT B. did say at the beginning of MT that combining various drawings of nonrunners could result in the *image* of perpetual motion. IOW you take a snapshot of the runner wheel and you see various circulations of weights. This is what B. was stating I now believe. What I found is that my design combines the *carbon copy* movements of many MT drawings (depicting yellow weights) and of MT48 (depicting red weights). The problem is the nature of the movement and it can only be discerned from B. clues outside of MT. The one clue that stands out is the 4 lbs shooting up as 1 lb gently descending. The original German says the 4 lbs are catapulted or slinged while they are moving, suggesting aerial flight. So the type of movement is probably what makes or breaks a runner I feel. Only a build will ultimately determine the validity of my theory.

[WaltzCee]

It runs according to 'preponderance' and turns everything else alone with it. On one side it is heavy and full, on the other . .. .. .

I think pre·pon·der·ance is more of an objective or manifestation of a principle.

[mryy]

It runs according to 'preponderance' and turns everything else alone with it. On one side it is heavy and full, on the other . .. .. .

I think pre·pon·der·ance is more of an objective or manifestation of a principle.

And the principle is "ponderous impetus" according to B. :)

[WaltzCee]

We all know Bessler's English wasn't too good. If that's a quote of his, then, well maybe he's trying to be obtuse.

You might say, full on one side empty on the other, is a principle. I'd contend that would have to be an effect of some cause or principle.

Bessler could get subtlely snarky when he wanted to.

[Fletcher]

"The causative principle of the movement is its ponderous impetus. It runs according to 'preponderance' and turns everything else alone with it. On one side it is heavy and full, on the other side empty and light. It must revolve through my principle of 'excess weight', at first slow, then gradually increasing its temp to the accompaniment of a likewise increasing noise caused by the movement of its internal weights, resulting in a living machine. These weights are themselves the perpetual motion device, the 'essential constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force so long as they keep away from the center of gravity." (Collins translation)

mryy .. I don't believe I've read that exact translation before. I spent some time searching thru John Collins digital AP and DT but can't find it.

Could you provide your full reference, thanks.