right angles

[preoccupied]

This is great. I'm eating pizza.

I found that if I changed the arm one over for the reload location that I can make it so that the reloads won't overlap and I will still lift high enough to reach the new reload by pushing the extra distance underneath upwards by some rod or something. So as far as I can see 8 arms would be ideal. I'm glad I didn't give up on 8 arms because this might actually work.

[nicbordeaux]

preoccupied : you can easily make a model from old meccano. Or even balsa with pins as pivots. It won't have the precision to be PM but it will show you what happens when different things change position. Heck, most of us have even made test sims from cardboard and pins.

Jim : I take it you are ok w/ point 3 (the general principle illustrated). if so, we are into your territory. CF being stronger than vertical . Which answers the question about the meaning of preponderance :-)

[Richard]

Preoccupied

Get a cup of water, and dump it on the countertop.

richard

[daxwc]

Jim, I think you can read into it either way, but the translation does not mention pairs which why my quick search brought up nothing.

I would post the retranslation, but Stewart doesn’t like when I drag things out of his forum.

One thing I did notice in the retranslation is that Besslers only use of the word gravity is gone. I don’t have the originals of Wagner’s critiques to make sure he is using the word or if it just got translated in.

[Richard]

dax post

One thing I did notice in the retranslation is that Besslers only use of the word gravity is gone. I don’t have the originals of Wagner’s critiques to make sure he is using the word or if it just got translated in.

thank you for that dax. there are so many similarities between gravity and absorption, that what you share, may shed light (eventually) on how Bessler perceived force(s) contemporary to Newtons thoughts.

richard

[murilo]

The sole "clue" that Bessler left that seem's to be of any significance is the statement about weights working in pairs, and seeking to attain equilibrium but never managing to do so. Just my uninformed opinion.

Do we disregard all the other clues???

1. Machine was set in motion by weights.
2. Weights acted in pairs.
3. Weights gained force from their own swinging (or movement).
4. these weights ... are the essential parts ... and when they come to be placed together and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium ... one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis ...
5. Springs were employed, but not as detractors suggested.
6. The machine's power was directly proportional to its diameter.
7. So then, a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, at its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time.
   
   Alternate: Indeed, a work of art must drive itself from many separate pieces of lead; That are now always two and two; If a thing takes outwardly the place, thus the other drives to the axle/shaft; this is soon here, and that is soon there; And also changes on and on.
8. the wonderful doings of these weights, alternately gravitating to the center and climbing back up again,
9. A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain.
   
   Alternate: he shall be called a great craftsman/artist, who can easily throw a heavy thing high, and when one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds four quarters high. Who of this can speculate, will soon the motion perpetuate, who however does not yet know this, all that industry is in vain.
10. He can rack his brains and work his fingers to the bones with all sorts of ingenious ideas about adding extra weights here and there. The only result would be that his wheel will get heavier and heavier - it would run longer if it were empty!
11. Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the center than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago, I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn through bitter experience.
12. no weights hang from the axle of my wheel.
13. there is nothing supercritical about the exact disposition of the weights - an ounce more or less, here or there, makes not a scrap of difference to the Wheel
14. Ask any of those who have groped inside my Wheel and grasped its axle" - "Rather, it has many compartments, and is pierced all over with various holes.
15. one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound.
16. What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: 'Now I understand!'
17. If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulls and weights, the machine can revolve much faster
18. I don't want to go into the details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused to rise. You can't comprehend these matters, or see how true craftsmanship can rise above innate lowly tendencies (as does a weight above the point of application of a lever)
19. If one weight is giving an upward impetus, another one, at the same time, is giving an equal downward one.
20. It must, simply put, just revolve, without being wound-up, through the principle of 'excess weight'
21. it runs according to 'preponderance', and turns everything else along with it; as long as its materials shall endure, it will revolve of its own accord.
22. On one side it is heavy and full; on the other empty and light, just as it should be.
23. All the wise ones were looking for the same principle (of 'excess weight') that I have described, and they sought it in things that were already familiar to them.
24. by all intelligent people, who, with true understanding, have sought the Mobile in a place no different from that in which I eventually found it.
25. there's always the danger that a surreptitious shove would knock it out of balance and bring it grinding to a halt.
26. I constructed my great work, the 6-ell diameter wheel. It revolved in either direction, but caused me a few headaches before I got the mechanism properly adjusted.
27. reached the stage now where even a poor workman could put the thing together without a lot of head-scratching; and get it completed almost before you could notice
28. The clattering noise you refer to is, I assure you, a phenomenon caused directly by the real motive power of the machine, and nothing else.
29. Note: The Draschwitz machine did not create a similar noise because it worked on quite different principles.
30. I make my machines in such a way that, big or small, I can make the resulting power small or big as I choose. I can get the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as much as fourfold.
31. In a true Perpetuum Mobile everything must, necessarily, go round together. There can be nothing involved in it which remains stationary on the axle.
32. The wheel's own inner force must come into being, without external momentum being applied
33. The internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way that weights applied in accordance with the laws of Perpetual Motion, work, once a small impressed force has caused the commencement of movement, to perpetuate the said movement and cause the rotation to continue indefinitely
34. For this concept, my 'principle of excess weight' ... these weights are themselves the PM device, the 'essential constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity.
35. they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and coordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or 'point of rest', but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing.
36. It revolves, but without other wheels inside or outside, and without weights, wind, or springs.
37. Seen sideways or full face it is as glorious as a peacock's tail.
38. It turns to the right and to the left. It spins around in any direction whether laden or empty.
39. MT9... nothing is to be accomplished with his thing unless one acts out of my connectedness principle
40. MT10... the figure is not yet complete until I delineate it much differently at the appropriate place and indicate the correct handle-construction.
41. MT11... This figure is doubled, as one can see, and the form does not involve much, but there is more in it than meets the eye, as will be seen when I pull back the curtain and disclose the correct principle at the appropriate place, as mentioned previously.
42. MT14... What is objectionable about this model, what to learn from it and how it can and may be used, will all be treated later.
43. MT15... From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the superior weight.
44. Bessler on the Toy's Page shows two hammer men toys with two men each. Each man swings a weight.
45. Bessler on the Toy's Page shows two hammer men toys with one swung to the right and one swung to the left.
46. Bessler on the Toy's Page shows what looks like a link chain on the far right side and what looks like a Jacob's Ladder toy on the right side and a scissor-jack on the left side
47. Bessler on the Toy's Page shows fat men swinging large short hammers against an anvil and skinny men swinging lighter long handled axes chopping wood.
48. Bessler on the Toy's Page shows the skinny men with twisted clothing
49. Bessler on the Toy's Page shows a toy top that will flip over, end for end when spun.
50. 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.

Jim,
thank you so much for this list!

Sorry, if I could, now I was going to send you back all those RED dots... the same dots that you miss so much!
Sorry, Jim... )8)
Best!
M.

[pequaide]

3. Weight can’t gain force because it is a force, at least in today’s language. Weight (that is thought to be a mass: but isn’t) can be given more energy or more momentum by giving it motion. The mass is getting energy from its swing. But it is not its own swing: it is being forced (CF) to swing by the wheel itself. By releasing at the correct time the pendulum is given energy by the wheel.

[preoccupied]

One side lifts the weight for the other side and one side drops the weight for the other side. It looks like it's overbalanced. Wouldn't you say so too? How do I calculate this?

[preoccupied]

Preoccupied

Get a cup of water, and dump it on the countertop.

richard

what does that mean? Did I offend you? I'm sorry. I don't mean to offend anybody. Right now I am just drawing pictures and trying to visualize an overbalanced wheel. I think it's cool. I don't know what you think. I would really really really really like to know what could be wrong with my last picture because I think it would work because of how the picture looks but I don't know how to calculate it.

[rlortie]

Preoccupied,

I do not wish to offend you either, but being honest and open I must say;

First you are perplexed as no one is responding to your various animations in this thread, no one is paying attention to you.

You PM me stating;

I would appreciate a comment on the string right angles if you see it. I modified the distance of the lever attached to the axle so the distance there changes.

The reason you are not getting any response from me and/or others is quite evident. Your animations are meaningless and I for one do not understand them. They are operating to fast to diagnose and I do not see anything here making up any kind of PM or gravity wheel.

If you want input beyond pouring a cup of water on the countertop, I suggest you make your animations either slower or better yet in static phases with each having an explanation of what is allegedly transpiring.

At present your posts on this thread 'Right Angles' is doing nothing but clouding the issue as I see no relevance between your input and thread topic.

To reiterate; your animations that you wish for me and others to comment on do not make any sense!

Yet it is quite possible that it will be a 'newbie' who finds the answer as he is not acclimated to the traditional research laid down over the last 300 years!

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Ditto.

[preoccupied]

Object A is all the levers attached together. Object B shows the functionality of the overbalance process. In Object B on picture 1 the right side of the object is the weight and lever that will lift the weight up. Furthermore the weight on the left side has to drop down from its starting position because that is where the right side of the object will lift the weight to. The weight needs to attach to the lever attached to the left side.

The levers will turn 45 degrees and the arms attached to the weights are pushing against a vertical incline and will only apply force from that and that is where I think this relates to the thread because the force being applied is being applied at a right angle to the X axis. Someone also said right angles meant “perpendicular� and I think the vertical incline is perpendicular to the X Axis.

In object B on the right side the arm is closer to the axle on the lever and the arm is smaller than the arm on the left side. On the vertical incline a rod is under the weight and above the arm so that the arm will push on the rod and add the length between the arm and the weight to the distance lifted after turning 45 degrees. After the 45 degree turn the weight lifted leaves the rod and arm connection and waits to be dropped into position.

Picture 2 shows the position of object B after turning 45 degrees. I didn’t draw a line to represent the vertical incline but it kind of overlaps so imagine there is something to lean against that allows a vertical incline. If the weights were sitting on the points where they apply pressure to the levers they would be overbalanced because one side is farther away from the axle than the other BUT they are pushing against a vertical incline which might change things. I don’t know how to make the design as efficient as possible because I don’t know what changes would change the vertical incline calculations for the worse. The arm on object B on the right side can be smaller and closer to the axle and the arm on the right side can be bigger and closer to the axle but it can’t be too big or it will touch the reload location. I think there is an advantage by having a smaller arm attached to the lever on the right side of object B because the distance under the weight on the vertical incline can be pushed up using a rod.

[AB Hammer]

preoccupied

What seems to be the problem with the communication is that you are showing a movement with out a mover. In other words. What is suppose to make these movements happen? This is why people can't make an honest comment of your animations.

I hope this helps

[murilo]

Ditto.

8)

[preoccupied]

preoccupied

What seems to be the problem with the communication is that you are showing a movement with out a mover. In other words. What is suppose to make these movements happen? This is why people can't make an honest comment of your animations.

I hope this helps

In object B the mover is the lever facing out to the left. The weights are in the center but they are pushing against a lever so the force against the wheel is where the weight is pushing against the lever facing out on the left. The size of the lever on the left is actually larger than the size of the lever on the right because the arm is connected in different spots for the reload arm on the right and the pushing arm on the left. It should be a mover because the pressure is applied to a larger lever on the left of object B. Am I wrong? If weights are in the center do they all have zero torque? They shouldn't because they are attached to an arm with a joint on a lever and are not rigid at the joint. I'm willing to explain as much as possible until I know why I'm wrong or know why people don't understand me.