Perpetual Motion is Impossible

[Fletcher]

Cheers guys .. my thoughts take a different path ..


Further .. B's. runners had a superior directional force ! (Wagner quotes Bessler)

Force is not Energy ..

The Classical Matrix ..

B's. runners gained in momentum (and RKE), and > outputted Work (f.d) i.e. normal system dissipative energy losses plus external work done.

My Physics Fundamentalist View ..

Momentum and Energy are conserved quantities ... their budgets, at system wide scale, are finite ... therefore ...

Momentum and Energy was appropriated to the pure mechanical runner to sustain self-moving rotation, including output of internal and external Work. - However, system wide Momentum and Energy budgets remain balanced i.e. conserved.

^^ Imo a clever arrangement of conservative mechanical principles designed to appropriate some of earth's momentum and redirect it into the runners rotation, to self-sustain itself and do work !

[eccentrically1]

There’s no momentum gradient between the earth and anything on its surface to appropriate.

Everything in the earth’s FoR has the same momentum.

Heat, pressure.

Focus

[Fletcher]

At least we agree energy had to enter the picture, and the 'runner' changed the form of the energy into mechanical and usable output work.

** Just build a Beverly Clock (one of the longest running science experiments in history) the size of the Eiffel Tower to lift some small stampers and 'voila' - just don't show anybody the complexity inside, least of all Karl or his carpenters boy or they'd have a fit ;7)

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/beverly-clock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Clock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox%27s_timepiece

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelis_Drebbel

Patent for a Perpetual Clock of 1598 ..

[thx4]

There’s no momentum gradient between the earth and anything on its surface to appropriate.

Everything in the earth’s FoR has the same momentum.
Heat, pressure.
Focus

No better 😊

Patent for a Perpetual Clock of 1598 ..

Well, here I am reassured, finally the right direction, it will save me from harping on.
B, has found a purely mechanical watchmaking complication, able to diffuse energy for a very long time, and nothing else, yes but which one?
I am reluctant for the moment to broadcast my discovery, "I have no weight to reassemble" several reasons, I am lazy to finish, and it will not be perpetual ...
You guys are getting me so worked up about it, 😉
I'll probably finish the thing, either way, it will need replicators before a full release.
Notice to applicants!!!
A++

[Tarsier79]

THX. Calculate with your mechanism how long it will run for If all the weight in your mechanism drops with the weight taking up the total volume of Besslers largest wheel, additionally, how much load it is able to do while it is running.

[thx4]

I am unable to answer you immediately, I am on the mechanism not on the wheel which for me is only used as a disk of inertia and still...
According to me, the system should be maintained long enough to give the illusion, now it has to be finished. After that, no worries about the load, the efficiency will be relative to the size of the weights.
A++

[johannesbender]

John Phin, in his Seven Follies of Science* (an able book of the nil admirari kind) has suggested another solution.

* The Seven Follies of Science, John Phin (New York, 1906).

"I have no doubt that this was a clear case of fraud, and that the wheel was driven by some mechanism concealed in the huge axle. As already stated Orffyreus was at one time a clock-maker; now clocks have been made to go for a whole year without having to be rewound, so that forty days was not a very long time for the apparatus to keep in motion."

Actually, the period of the test at Weissenstein was fifty-four days. That, however, although casting a shade of doubt on Phin's general accuracy, does not affect his argument. He might have made it even more •striking if he had known that Jean Romilly, a Parisian watch-maker (1714-96), had produced, about 1750, a watch capable of going for a year with one winding. But, really, it is no argument at all.

It is perfectly true that both weight-driven and spring-driven clocks have often been made which will go for a year without re-winding. But it is equally true that the stored power has necessarily to be doled out to their mechanism in such infinitesimal doses that all the moving parts have to be kept as light and frictionless as possible; and hence such clocks are utterly incapable of doing any more work than that involved in keeping themselves going. In consequence, they are not good timekeepers. The modern spring-clocks of the kind are beneath contempt; but the twelve-month weight-driven clock made by Daniel Quare about 1700, which was for a long time at Hampton Court, near Leominster,* is a good specimen. This was examined in 1873 by Mr. H. P. Palmer, a clock-maker of Leominster,* who found that the driving weight of the clock weighed 81 lb. and, with a fall of 4 feet 6 inches, had to drive the clock for 403 days. If we assume that Orffyreus' wheel weighed no more than a couple of hundredweight (which is probably a long way below the truth), such a store of power would not have kept it turning, in its bearings, for a single day at twenty-six turns a minute. In fact, I question whether, if Orffyreus had contrived to fill the whole of his immense drum with stored power in the form of weights or springs (and it must be remembered that no other ways of storing power were then known), he could, bearing in mind the great weight thus involved, have kept it turning for fifty days in 1-inch plain bearings.

* Rather confusingly, there is another twelve-month clock, also by Quare, at Hampton Court Palace. My friend Mr. Courtenay Ilbert possesses a third specimen.

Even if we grant the possibility of his having done so, there are two further objections, both of which are fatal. The power available would have been so slight that the wheel certainly could not have done work: the application of the cord connecting it with the water-raising plant would not have merely reduced its speed by a few revolutions–it would have slowed down gradually and steadily until it stopped altogether. And secondly, and for the same reason (the very slight power available), the wheel would, if it accelerated at all, have taken hours, or even days, to work up to a speed of twenty-six revolutions a minute–whereas it is attested to have actually done so, after being barely started, in a few turns.

This second objection–the very slow acceleration of the wheel if driven by clockwork–also disposes of the suggestion that it might possibly have been contrived, in some manner, to stop itself after the room was sealed and restart itself as the latter was being opened. I mention this point because I believe that some such contrivance was at the bottom of a curious paragraph which appeared in the Horological Journal for November 1881.*

* It was taken from The Times of Oct. 27, 1881. The box was probably opened on or about Oct. 15, which would make the period of the test 1000 days.

"A veteran watch-maker at Vouvry, Switzerland, claims to have invented a process (sic) by which watches will go for years without winding up.† A sealed box containing two watches, entrusted to the municipal authorities on the 19th of January, 1879, has just been opened, and the watches were found going.–The Times."

† It is, however, possible that these watches were self-winding. Such a watch, wound by the force exerted by the expansion and contraction (in heat and cold) of a small quantity of glycerine, was brought out in Switzerland about 1926.

It is scarcely credible that Orffyreus could have been able to determine beforehand, within an hour or so, the exact time of either the intermediate or final openings of the sealed room; in consequence, the restarting mechanism could not have been worked by, say, a two-month clock, but must have been set in action by the actual breakage of the seals or the opening of the door. The wheel, therefore, would have had only a few seconds to accelerate from rest to its maximum speed.

In addition, there is the Landgrave's direct statement, in the certificate which he gave to Orffyreus, that the construction of the machine was not such that it required winding up.

It would almost seem, then, that we must assume the mechanism of the wheel to have been such as to enable it to tap some natural source of power–unless, indeed, we prefer to believe that Orffyreus was generations ahead of his time, and fitted his machine with an electric motor, driven by current supplied either from accumulators inside the wheel or, via the pivots and bearings, from some external source. With regard to the latter hypothesis, credat Judæus Apella–I do not propose to discuss it.

Something i completely agree with is that although clockwork can be made to unwind long and also wind back up with other sources , they do not have the power that was demonatrated by the performace of the wheels.

[agor95]

Something i completely agree with is that although clockwork can be made to unwind long and also wind back up with other sources , they do not have the power that was demonatrated by the performace of the wheels.

So I have read the block of text and you summaries by saying it's not clockwork.

How do I get my time back? ;-)

Regards

[johannesbender]

The author had some valid points Imo , i think JC would remember who it was :)

[John Collins]

I’m not sure which author you’re referring to. I have a copy of John phin’s book, but you have noted him.

JC

[johannesbender]

https://jot101.com/2014/06/the-wheel-of-orffyreus-1/ , man there are some nasty comments down there too .

[John Collins]

I’ve had copy of that book for many many years. It’s a well written book, keeping to the traditional view of PM.

JC

[Fletcher]

Thanks for the link jb .. I hadn't seen that before and it gives some new information (for me).

One report says that the one-way wheel before Merseburg was unable to be moved, for instance. This could add to my case for transferring momentum as the source of energy for his runners, in my mind at least. I've postulated that they must be securely anchored to an effectively unmovable structure also anchored to the earth.

...............

Besides any known environmental force being extremely weak and not having enough energy to replicate the work tests we have another problem.

If you believe that the Toy's Page is central to solving the mechanics of a B. runner (as I do) then where is the environmental energy source on the TP ?

Obviously B. drew in the spinning top sans rope. But he drew it in after he had made the print block of the TP. And it still doesn't show any environmental force other than it is surrounded by air as are all the toys. The upright spinning top could represent something entirely different than its connection with air.

B. says ...

JC's translation .. No’s 138-141

5. Children's game in which there is something extraordinary for anyone who knows how to apply the game in a different way.

Stewart Hughes 2010 .. "5 children's games In which however there may also be something special, for those who know of another way to apply them."

When I look at the figures on the TP I just don't see any connection to any environmental force on that page that can be leveraged into external work and make a wheel self-moving i.e. a perpetual motion machine.

The energy came from somewhere and on that page is a combination of elements that can manifest a superior directional force imo.

[eccentrically1]

Momentum isn’t a force or a source of energy. I think you mean transferring earth’s RKE to a wheel, like tidal forces? That would be a neat trick if you can do it. How is that going?
The toy page doesn’t show any forces or energy transformation, so I’m not surprised it doesn’t show environmental effects either. The mt’s have stork bills etc. like the toy page but he tells us those don’t work without the prime mover. So I don’t see how the toy page gives us the answer to that question.
I agree with the link above, the short lifts don’t prove pm. That’s why the 54 day test was necessary. And even then it could have been accomplished with a weak source, because it only needed to overcome axle friction and air drag.

[Fletcher]

My template ..

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

"When you hear hooves think horses, not zebras."

"Follow the energy/fuel"

The basic premise is that to output work a runner needs a fuel/energy input. Gravity is a force and not an energy. Therefore to have an 'impossible' runner (based on OOB principles) then it must have an 'improbable' fuel/energy source. We know that environmental forces are far too weak to replicate B's. work tests at his scale. And we can only use technology of his time. Our sources and choices of fuel/energy are ridiculously limited.

** In my case I eventually worked up a simple Prime Mover mech design from an amalgam of the Toy's Page figures, with respect to certain well known MT's. And also keeping cognizant of the constraints of fundamental Physics and Mechanics Conservation Laws and Symmetries. Since traditional OOB wheels are 'torque conservative' then the Prime Mover needed to induce some superior directional force internally within the wheel to create a Net Positive Torque condition, and at the same time not violate Newton's Laws etc. Once I had a bead on what those fundamental mechanics could be, while still being ostensibly an OOB wheel format, then I could begin to deuce and look for a real source of energy that hypothetically caused it to be a self-moving runner. Momentum/RKE appropriation seemed a likely candidate regardless of there being no recognised examples existing in nature at the earths surface (altho known in satelite sling-shot maneuvers to gain KE and speed).

^^ Yes I know - mech before fuel is an arse about face approach - So far I am quite happy with the potential Prime Movers' progress and resilience (as determined by me). No show stopper has been found as yet. It will need a real-world build to fully test its functionality and whether it is fit for purpose as imagined. Imagination is notoriously unreliable and a poor substitute for empirical evidence as we all know only too well in this quest to solve the mechanical conundrum of B's. PM Principle of "excess weight".