Excess Torque Hypothesis : Mechanical Sustainable Imbalance Possibilities ( <>> ) ?

[daxwc]

I have a couple of questions I thought somebody would ask so I didn’t have to. Sorry if you addressed them already but I am a poor pupil.
1) Did it coast when pushed by hand and slowly run down. Give any indication just friction was the problem? Can you give us some indication how the action felt?
2) Why was your sims so wrong? You did all kinds of SIMs there has to be a lesson for people relying on the tool.

[Fletcher]

I have a couple of questions I thought somebody would ask so I didn’t have to. Sorry if you addressed them already ...

1) Did it coast when pushed by hand and slowly run down. Give any indication just friction was the problem? Can you give us some indication how the action felt?

2) Why was your sims so wrong? You did all kinds of SIMs there has to be a lesson for people relying on the tool.

Hi .. good questions dax. I can probably address both in one answer.

The real world mock-up did have quite a lot of friction. But then all Ramelli's do, that have meshing gears or belt drives etc. Their positive is that they are torque neutral in any position. Their negative is they have internal friction, and quite a lot of it compared to other mechanics. Tho that can be managed with expertise and engineering.

The following explanations are moving away from the theoretical and more towards the engineering.

So, yes it had quite a lot of friction and ran down not slowly but quickly.

That is the beauty of building a sim equivalent. It had no internal gear frictions set so would give the best possible theoretical performance possible. IOW's gear frictions were not in the picture. (BTW - anyone running the sim may have to check collisions are on for some Chain links and rollers. That's because when my laptop is stressed the program can drop these out. Part of managing a build). AND the sim also ran down quickly n.b. turn on the motor drive and after 1/2 second turn it off. It quickly reverses direction and stops.

So even giving it a big push start it quickly ran down and stopped. What was happening ? Was it frictions overcoming it ?

No ! The sim doesn't have any frictions in the gears ! It was much more simple than that.

Looking at the sim pic of the 5 planet gear system look at the top gear at 12 o'cl. The roller-lever is to the right and down, on which the Chain is resting (blue roller). That lever will keep that orientation at all times in the rotation.

As the motor turns the sim the lever is forced to LIFT the Chain (up the hill). If I give it enough push it will lift the Chain up the hill (car up the hill anaolgy) and it will then roll down the other side.

If I don't give it enough push start the car doesn't get up the hill and rolls back down again (reversing the direction of rotation and finding its position of least PE).

Theoretically if there were no system energy losses it should just keep rotating with a good push to get the car over the hill. It would run down the other side and up the next hill etc.

But the system does have energy losses. The Chain sways and rocks around. The links gain KE. That KE has to come from somewhere. It comes from the system and so is an ongoing energy loss (because the Chain is always swaying). And that's not considering other normal system friction losses of ALL mechanical systems.

So to sum up : IMO frictions didn't stop it. Swaying Chain links caused system energy losses which stopped it quickly.

Hope that makes sense, but was my impression of what was happening at the time. The sim didn't go wrong - it went right !

[eccentrically1]

I have a question. What is the most valuable thing you learn about perpetual motion from a simulation in general, and this one in particular?

[Fletcher]

I have a question. What is the most valuable thing you learn about perpetual motion from a simulation in general, and this one in particular?

Also a good question.

Funnily enough that a simulation is a reality check. Your mind is capable of imagining all sorts of fanciful mechanics. Real world building and hands on experimenting will educate you, and so will a good simulation program used correctly. Both can compliment each other.

What is the most valuable thing I learned about PM from this one ? That whilst I can get a torque neutral arrangement and then add an OOB potential "Prime Mover" in the form of a looped Chain I could not use my Gaffle Jack engineering in that scenario. Itself imo quite capable of holding out a Chain without the lifting shortfalls of the fixed-arm Ramelli because it successfully transfers forces etc. However combining a Gaffle Jack arrangement with a Ramelli background Carrier was beyond my imagination or ability to implement at this time. Someone else may have better foresight.

Nevertheless I believe I did gain other things of value which shall remain with me for now until I have had a chance to investigate thoroughly and discuss at a future time. Anybody reading this topic now has the same information and insights that I had after conducting the experiments and is free to form their own hypothesis.

[daxwc]

So the principle is not dead. I gather you have not abandon the Gaffle Jack and have dust binned the Geared Ramelli. Maybe went back to the RB and hopefully threw that chain in the river. 8)

Hint hint… a little more where you’re headed if you can.

[Fletcher]

The principle contained in the title of this thread still breathes air ;7)
i.e. "Excess Torque Hypothesis : Mechanical Sustainable Imbalance Possibilities ( <>> ) ?"

One logical embodiment of that principle was to attempt a torque neutrality arrangement and add back imbalance.

The first foray proposed the Gaffle Jack and Chain imbalance element first, and then finding the torque neutrality element second, proved problematic for me. Therefore so far not feasible.

The second foray proposed reversed thinking i.e. arrangement of torque neutrality firstly, using a Ramelli, then add back imbalance with the Chain. This also so far proving not feasible for me for reasons discussed.

The second embodiment of the principle is a further dialing in on the problem, and what I am working on now. It also appears quite logical (to me) but is a vastly different approach to sustained imbalance than the last experiments above. The Chain takes a swim ;7) Tho the Gaffle Jack is still paramount to the investigation, for reasons which will become obvious in time. The engineering more simple than the last experiments imo ! Basically capturing high efficiency of mechanical movement and low system energy wastage and using it wisely is the driver behind the concept. Nothing mechanically exotic of any sorts.

FWIW my focus always comes back to these things to work with ...

A connectedness principle i.e. a principle of together hung (zusammen gehangten).

A special handle and construction.

A Prime Mover.

Something special about Storks Bills.

Karl's Statement to his ministers. It is easy to understand and simple to build.

N.B. easy to watch and understand the mechanical actions in front of you. Not easy or intuitive to understand the Physics behind the system torques generated. Simple to build is always relative, but simple enough with some experience etc.

[Georg Künstler]

Fletcher wrote:

A connectedness principle i.e. a principle of together hung (zusammen gehangten).

A special handle and construction.

A Prime Mover.

Something special about Storks Bills.

Karl's Statement to his ministers. It is easy to understand and simple to build.

Indeed it is a special trick.
My question was always how can an indirect impact
increase the torque.

Therefore I analysed the indirect impact point in the wheel.

The indirect impact point must occur in the upper part of the wheel.

Any construction which I tried created an indirect impact point in the lower half of the wheel

But now i found a construction of a collapsing window. this will create the impact on the upper half.

The indirect impact is multiplying the torque in the wheel.
It let gravity make the the work again and again.

I show you here the basic of the internal construction, it will fall forward in the Hamstercage.

It will make an impact on the downgoing side, but not in the lower part of the wheel.
It will make the impact on the upper half !!

[daxwc]

Something special about Storks Bills.

I am always left wondering if the special came in play for the bi-directional wheel. I mean after all it is just a bi-direction lever if pinned/pivoted in the middle.

[Fletcher]

This is the actual quote .. Bessler MT41 : "I can assure the reader that there is something special behind the stork's bills."


I paraphrased it to .. "Something special about Storks Bills."


I don't think it makes much difference.

I am always left wondering if the special came in play for the bi-directional wheel.

I mean after all it is just a bi-direction lever if pinned/pivoted in the middle.

I'm in the camp that thinks there are two systems per wheel, one for each direction. And each used a special feature of the generic SB mechanics in its engineering solution.

I mainly think that was the case because his two-directional wheels suddenly were substantially wider than the one-directionals.

And they had no torque when standing still, until pushed in one direction above a threshold speed when they accelerated away. As opposed to his one-way wheels which had torque while standing still and tied down. Therefore two opposite one-way systems could counter-balance torques while stationary until one became dominant once underway.

[daxwc]

I have always been of the camp it is two separate mechanical devices that in the end achieve the requirements for PM. If you have a set of weights riding around for free not providing any power just to achieve bi-direction it is going to take a bigger wheel. The only proof I have of this is only how complicated and varied MT gets and of course Bessler’s statements himself.

You also wish me to inform you why the Draschwitz
machine did not create a similar noise; well, I'll tell you. The two
machines can easily be contrasted, as they worked on quite
different principles. The former (Draschwitz) one turned in only
one direction, but the latter (Merseburg ) one turned, as everyone
could see, both ways…

… I have many other machines of various types - some, for instance, with
weights, others without AP 344

So how does Bessler use the word principle?

It must, simply put, just revolve, without being wound-up, through the
principle of "excess weight", as I describe in Part I. AP353

The excess weight as proven before directly means overbalance.

[Silvertiger]

Fletcher, what if the "something special" is actually a physical THING that is actually BEHIND the storks bills, as in a physical location? I tend to think from his writings that B sometimes liked to hide things in plain sight by being literal.

Examples: "But the weights which REST below must, in a FLASH, be raised up."

So, if being literal, there are weights literally resting at the bottom of the wheel, but are then raised IN or BY a FLASH.

"But here, the summer lightning flashes..." (In relation to other machines Literally freezing up). And there's that word again..."flash."

[Georg Künstler]

Silvertiger posted:

PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:55 pm Post subject:
Fletcher, what if the "something special" is actually a physical THING that is actually BEHIND the storks bills, as in a physical location? I tend to think from his writings that B sometimes liked to hide things in plain sight by being literal.

Examples: "But the weights which REST below must, in a FLASH, be raised up."

So, if being literal, there are weights literally resting at the bottom of the wheel, but are then raised IN or BY a FLASH.

"But here, the summer lightning flashes..." (In relation to other machines Literally freezing up). And there's that word again..."flash."

Also, wenn wörtlich, gibt es Gewichte buchstäblich am unteren Rand des Rades ruhen, aber dann angehoben IN oder VON einem
FLASH.

I agree on the view that masses are rised up in a flash, that I can demonstrate.
I desagree that the masses which are moved up in a flash are that one which are resting at the bottom.

We have several masses in the wheel which are all moving with a different speed.
The masses which are moved up with a flash are already above, in the upper part of the wheel.

So we can take Bessler's words litarally, only the location where which weight is located is different.

Every weight, masses are in move and go around, no one will stay in its position.
like a herd of horses.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher, what if the "something special" is actually a physical THING that is actually BEHIND the storks bills, as in a physical location? I tend to think from his writings that B sometimes liked to hide things in plain sight by being literal.

Examples: "But the weights which REST below must, in a FLASH, be raised up."

So, if being literal, there are weights literally resting at the bottom of the wheel, but are then raised IN or BY a FLASH.

"But here, the summer lightning flashes..." (In relation to other machines Literally freezing up). And there's that word again..."flash."

ST .. You'd probably need to read the German word for flash that B. used in each instance. And was it consistently translated as 'flash' or sometimes other English words ? Or was Mike Senior using the word 'flash' for more than one German word ? His translations in English are imo impressions of meaning, and not exact word for word translations. That is what an experienced translator would do unless asked otherwise. JC has talked about this before. And that is why sometimes Stewart's translations can convey a slightly different emphasis and meaning in some instances.

I have no doubt that B. was at times being literal and at other times figurative. The great difficulty is determining which.

What we do know is he suggests there is a 'correct handle AND construction'. That there is something 'special behind the SB'. That there is a 'connected principle (zusammen gehangten - together hung). And an absent Prime Mover, that initializes a movement imo.

My investigations regularly center around incorporating some type of mechanical engineering that encapsulates those 'suggestions' (literal or figurative). With an overriding consideration that it ultimately be easy to understand (the actions), and simple to build (not complex engineering).

And why I designed a unique engineering arrangement for a 'Circular Crane' (or Jack) to potentially redirect weight force usefully, which I called my 'Gaffle Jack'. Called that because it is based on using the extension arm of a pantagraph (SB) (i.e. Gaffle - the distilled mechanical principle of Mechanical Advantage and Speed Ratio MA x SR) used to load cross-bows in its day with reduced Effort. It is simply my engineered solution to redirect force elsewhere, as said previously.

In my mind it has elements of both the literal and figurative depending on the passage and the translation to English, imo. For me it fits much of the criteria above. And now I sort out its relationship to the Prime Mover, one of which iterations was the displacement Chain.

[Fletcher]

From John Collins AP translation [digital].

If I were to place, next to a 12-Ell wheel, one of 6-Ells, then, if I
wanted to, I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more
force and useful power than the large one. I can, in fact, make 2,
or 3, or even more, wheels all revolving on the same axis.
Further, 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. ...

... If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the
machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself
at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys
and weights, the machine can revolve much faster, and throw
Wagner's calculations clean out of the window!

I'm going to suggest that power range of 'fourfold' is a function of the number of lever-weights per wheel. And that is why the MT9 family shows anything in the range from 12 to 24 lever-weights per wheel drawing (or 36 for MT11 doubled).

[daxwc]

That is an interesting suggestion Fletcher. Hmm… but why not fivefold?