Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[SHADOW]

Bonjour Roxaway,
j'ai décortiqué votre ancien modèle pour comprendre ce que vous avez fait.
j'ai comparé avec la nouvelle version que vous avez faite.
j'ai réinitialisé ma version d'Algodoo pour éliminer les éventuels parasites.
la dernière version de votre roue oscille en permanence mais ne tourne pas.
j'ai allégé le poids du balancier et elle s'est mise à tourner!
la mise en place géométrique des deux contrepoids ne me semble pas évidente.
je vais superposer les deux modèles en position similaire pour comparer, certaines liaisons son différentes.
A suivre mais cela me semble prometteur car vous avez trouvé le moyen d'excentrer sans appuis extérieur!

Hello Roxaway,
I have dissected your old model to understand what you did.
I compared with the new version you made.
I have reset my version of Algodoo to eliminate any parasites.
the latest version of your wheel is constantly swinging but not spinning.
I lightened the weight of the balance and it started to turn!
the geometrical arrangement of the two counterweights does not seem obvious to me.
I will superimpose the two models in similar position to compare, some links are different.
To follow but it seems promising because you have found the way to excenter without external supports!

[Roxaway59]

Hi Dax / Shadow, you are absolutely right to point out anything that’s odd about the simulation.

We must always deal with what is, rather than what we want something to be.

Simulations, especially those using Algodoo can act as an indicator that something is important but they are far from being the real world.

What my simulation appears to be is a mechanical oscillator that is oscillating in a complex way.

The balancing system is not straight forward.

On the left it has a weight that shifts its weight as it goes up and down.

The weight shifting has negative feedback which opposes the up and down movement of the beam.

On the right the complex counterweight shifts its weight between the balancing beam and the wheel and is comprised of not only of the yellow weights but the rods that attach to them.

If and I do mean IF this is something real then what must be happening is a positive feedback loop between the balancing beam and the wheel. They are both egging one another on.

In reality of course this may only turn out to be a product of Algodoos imagination.

If it was real where would the energy be coming from?

Spoiler alert this is probably going to be unscientific because I’ve disengaged my logic chip.

I’m thinking that when the wheel is overbalanced and therefore has torque the balancing beam is overbalanced also, so it goes up on the left raising its GPE.

As the balancing beam rises the negative feedback kicks in but also the complex opposing weights are shifting position as the wheel turns and it starts to exert leverage on the right side but because the complex weights are not fixed this does not stop the wheel it simple helps move the complex weights into a different position and exerts some negative torque that is not equal to the positive torque.

The over all effect is positive feedback.

What I am thinking is that its a little bit like a yo yo where the weights are being thrown momentarily outward but moving in the direction of the turning wheel. I say this because as far as I can tell it works in both directions.

Obviously this is not a very scientific way of explaining it.

I don’t want to get ahead of myself here and as we all know WM2D has a way of pouring cold water on everything but I must admit I am struck by the similarity to this and the last block diagram I did of how I felt Besslers wheel had to work which I posted a while back.

Anyway I will get to work on WM2D as time permits.

Graham

[Oystein]

Oystein: Primum Movens version 2: Many individual object/forces, working in pairs, causing first motion to each individual object/planet. NB! Primum Movens was invisible!

Can you provide reference for the pairs Primum Movens prior to 1712?
I can find nothing.

I will post the ref. when I have the opertunity. I believe I have the drawings of the theory, with comments stored..

Best
Oystein

[SHADOW]

Roxaway, voici l'avancement de la reproduction de ta roue.
Elle tourne déjà sans les deux contres poids de balancier?!

Roxaway, here’s the progress of your wheel reproduction.
It already turns without the two counterweights?!

[Roxaway59]

Thanks Shadow that's interesting and it goes along with what Dax was observing.

Graham

[Oystein]

Oystein: Primum Movens version 2: Many individual object/forces, working in pairs, causing first motion to each individual object/planet. NB! Primum Movens was invisible!

Can you provide reference for the pairs Primum Movens prior to 1712?
I can find nothing.

Hello, as can be read on Wikipedia: Aristotle adopted the geometrical model of Eudoxus of Cnidus to provide a general explanation of the apparent wandering of the classical planets arising from uniform circular motions of celestial spheres.[9] While the number of spheres in the model itself was subject to change (47 or 55), Aristotle's account of aether, and of potentiality and actuality, required an individual unmoved mover (PRIME MOVER) for each sphere
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

The debate was about one single Prime Mover or individual Prime Movers. (MT 13 versus MT 15)?

The theory of the PRIME MOVER/Primum Movens was well known. Here we can se a painting by Raphael in the 1500s. The hand of "God" acting as one single Prime Mover for everything. According to the theory, the Prime mover is located at the outer "drum" or rim (Space).

Next we can see Primum Movens/Mobile located at the outer "shell", According to Aristotle. (Not in the center as in MT13.)

So I suggest that the Prime mover was placed in the outer part of Besslers wheel! I think that this was the "weights attached to movable or elastic arms, close to the rim of the wheel". If so, these were individual Prime movers, located just where Aristotle wrote.

Investigating MT 15, we can see that the invisible Primum Movens can be, either a single inside hanging object (like MT13) or it could be individual paired weights or forces pulling from a place outside of the circle..

And there is several things pointing in the direction of how the force can be applied..

Just as in Raphaels drawing, "a hand of God" could rise/pull the weight up and ahead. Just like the comment in MT 13 say.. or else a hand rise the weight in a flash.. I also mention that I have written before that the tail of the number 5 can be manipulated by lines covering or extending the "tail", and change 5 -> 3, and the number 53 was used as a number for "God". That is why I started looking at the tail of the number 5 in MT15 MT 13/15 cutting the tail by drawing a line.. etc.

This is how i discovered how one lever/weight could be risen from the outside..at the zenith.. by one of many individual Primum Movens..

My 2c
Oystein

[Roxaway59]

I think there are lots of questions we could ask about a prime mover.

What we do know about Besslers 2 way wheels is that strictly speaking they didn’t have one.

The wheels were started from an outside force. That force was supplied by a human being.

When I think about a prime mover what I am really thinking about is the special mechanism that allowed the positive feedback to take place.

It reminds me of a car alternator. It is the battery that provides the power to start the car but it cannot maintain that power. Once the car is started its the alternator that provides all the electrical energy for the cars systems including charging the battery that started the car.

Similarly Besslers later wheels needed a push to get them going then what I think of as the prime mover took over and what energy source did it use?

We know that it was part of an oscillatory system but what form did that take?

We know that part of that oscillatory system made some kind of impact on the descending side of the wheel. That impact was obviously necessary but it is as mysterious as the prime mover and could actually be the prime mover.

I seem to remember one of the witnesses saying that they turned the wheel until the sound of one of the weights falling and then the wheel began to move on its own or words to that effect.

Graham

[daxwc]

Shadow: Roxaway, here’s the progress of your wheel reproduction.
It already turns without the two counterweights?!

That is impressive Shadow. That runs more like real life. You can take away half the outside ring arms before it quits.

That is the oddest thing. As soon as that counter weight arm gets to noon it just takes off like a man with a paper ass running through a forest fire.

[SHADOW]

Finalisation de la reproduction de la roue de Roxaway,

Completion of the Roxaway wheel reproduction,

[Roxaway59]

Thanks Shadow, if you keep the balancing beam level and take the counter weight and hanging beams off then attach springs to it fixed to the top and bottom of the background you will see that it works just as well if not better.

If this is along the lines of what Bessler did then he may have only used a balancing beam like this to hide the mechanism.
Graham

[Oystein]

Hi Oystein, that’s an interesting post.

People say that you cant get something for nothing and that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

This statement is not correct in my opinion because not only is the universe full of free lunches but since many believe that the universe came from nothing then the universe itself is a free lunch..

All the best
Graham

Excaxtly. Science was developing while religious concepts was just as important to physics, as physics itself (Ref. Primum Movens, the invisible first mover of things). So the concept of nothing can be created from nothing, was solved and accepted, by "blaming God" the Primum Movens..Only God could make things move for free, or be created for free. He was allowed to break the laws of physics.. he was the missing link between nothing and thing..

But if we start from scratch without the god concept, a set of physics rules would emerge and say: We have mass and energy, thus (discarding god) mass/energy must be be able to be created by itself, from nothing!

John Nash concluded that, when reviewing physics from scratch, without being biased by any excisting concepts.

This would change a few things.. and open a few doors..

Best
Øystein

[Roxaway59]

Good news I think / hope, the last simulation I posted with 2 weights appears to be going very slightly over unity in WM2D.

This is very encouraging because when I put more weights on it in Algodoo it got stronger.

I think at the very least it is pointing to this idea as being one that needs a lot more experimentation and focus.

I will keep on trying to improve it in WM2D.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

I have been running a lot of simulations just recently and I want to show some of what I have found.

I continued to run simulations of my last sim posted and all I can say at the moment is that WM2D acts different than Algodoo when more weights are added.

In Algodoo it clearly gets stronger whereas in WM2D it just seems to flatten out but at times it can peak stronger. Its a bit strange how it behaves and its as though it wants to work. I haven't finished experimenting with it yet though and I would like to see what it does with 8 weights on it.

Because Algodoo is easier to experiment with I went back to it and experimented with an idea I put together months ago to see if the balancing beam would work on it.

This took me back to page 91 of this topic when I was talking about the need for the wheel to have the correct shape for over balance and positive feedback to occur.

I have been thinking along the same lines recently with the balancing beam idea.

I adapted one of the designs on page 91 (non of which worked) with the balancing beam idea plus folding beams and it works like the one recently posted but with some differences.

This new approach does not require me to have as many connections to the wheel as I add weights.

The weights are more uniform as they go around the wheel.

The connections to the wheel are closer to the axle.

Here is the design and once again run it and disengage the motor.

Graham

[johannesbender]

wrong topic.

[Roxaway59]

Let me just explain a few of my thoughts on this.

Here is part of a long post I made from page 91 -

I believe that it would take up an obvious overbalanced shape. I believe this for a lot of reasons but one of the main ones is because Bessler himself hints time and again about an obvious overbalanced nature to his wheels. For him to do this and misdirect people in this way is extremely unlikely in my opinion. If we take MT15 as an example he says this.
No. 15. This ratchet-wheel derives from the previous model, except that the tensioners are somewhat longer and have an additional special weight at the outer ends. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the overbalance.

THE OVERBALANCE as in what else do you expect to see. For Bessler to do this and give people this false impression when the book he is writing was originally about revealing his masterpiece I think is going too far. The overbalanced shape is everything because if you lose that you lose the overbalance.

Another thing that I believe is that if you uncovered one of Besslers two way wheels at rest you would still see that overbalanced shape. Like Bessler said seeming is not the same as being. We all know by now that just because something looks overbalanced it does not mean that it is. So although the two shapes may be similar the real one is just more so.

Lets assume for a moment that there is nothing faulty with the Algodoo simulation.
When the wheel turns the wheel is adopting a shape that is slightly overbalancing the wheel and the wheel with the balancing beam is a mechanical oscillator that is producing positive feedback which is enabling the wheel to keep its shape and maintain the overbalance.

In reality Algodoo may very well be doing something it shouldn’t be doing but lets not forget that it is designed to be fairly realistic. So here is the question I have to ask myself.

Is Algodoo so faulty that this idea is unworkable in reality or is the idea along the lines of what Bessler did but with a few bells and whistles missing?

Graham