The missing factor

[MrVibrating]

For my part, i'm still puzzling over the one-way wheels.

I'm trying to forget about all clues pertaining to the bi-directional ones, as, even though we have better descriptions of their characteristics , such as masses landing noisily on rim stops on the descending side, we don't know whether that particular detail describes part of the mechanism responsible for the OU, or just part of the mechanism causing it to continue working in its current direction of rotation - the bi-directional operation must've been initiated by angular inertia, since it only took off once rotated beyond a certain threshold velocity, and so we can't know whether to attribute any particular detail of its description to a potentially OU exploit, vs one merely concerned with maintaining a given directional bias..

With the one-directional wheels however, even though we have less information about them, we can be more certain that any such details are less likely to be incidental to the real area of interest. The machine lurched on its support posts. It made rattling / scratching noises that some skeptical observers thought consistent with a concealed feline accomplice.

Most perplexing to me, however, was the fact that it remained under static torque when tied off stationary.

To my thinking, this can only be explained by conventional overbalancing - it was heavier on one side whilst tied off stationary.

This can only mean that an OB weight was resting against the descending side of the wheel, such that it was able to get lower by causing the wheel to rotate.

Any other potential mechanism that could replicate this behaviour would require an internally-hidden stator, which Bessler expressly denied using - "all of the internal parts, and the perpetual motion structures, retain the power of free movement, as i've been saying since 1712" [...] "in a true PMM, everything must, of necessity, go around together - there can be nothing involved in it that remains stationary upon the axle" etc. etc.

The first question this point then raises to me is, if the weights operate in pairs, alternating inner vs outer positions, and furthermore the OB is caused by the latter weight, then what of the former? If one's overbalancing, then its companion must be underbalancing, or else, hanging below, or already raised above.

Whatever its position, the rotation of the wheel caused by the OB weight getting lower must somehow drive an internal mechanism that performs some other kind of work. Yet the whole wheel turns together with its axle, and Bessler claims there's no internal stator... which confronts us with a seeming paradox - the wheel has to be rotating relative to something else, in order to extract work from its rotation.

If there is no internal hanging stator (what Fletcher has referred to as an 'artificial horizon', per MT 13) - or more to the point, this stator is not remaining in the gravitational, earth-bound, vertical reference frame... then the only remaining possibility seems to be angular inertia..

..so, something that resists rotation due principally to its angular inertia, but which nonetheless remains balanced with respect to gravity.

However everything must also rotate together. Therefore whatever provides this angular inertia is ultimately accelerated regardless. And at this point, there is no longer any internal alternate reference frame for the OB-led motion of the wheel to perform work upon some other mechanism with. Therefore, this internal angular inertia has to be constantly varying its speed - speeding up, then slowing down again, in order to be able to facilitate successive interactions.

All of which seems consistent with this internal angular inertia varying its radius throughout a cycle, and so exercising the 'ice skater effect'.

However, pulling a mass inwards against centrifugal force requires some other energy input. If the source of that energy is GPE, then yet another internal 'stator' is required to torque against. So, a third internal angular inertia is required, in order to convert GPE into a change in radius of the previously-inferred angular inertia.

To frame that in a graphical example, suppose we have a rotating siccorjack with a mass on each end, that we want to retract and expand in turn - it can expand purely under centrifugal force, but to force it to retract, by applying an OB torque from a descending weight that is turning the entire system of wheel plus scissorjack... we need a third angular inertia to leverage against.

Which itself is going to be accelerated. And so which will also need decelerating again, so it can re-used in the same manner over successive cycles..

I have no clue how to resolve this, or the implied multiplication of entities... all i know is, the wheel was under static torque whilst stationary, it somehow harvested the resulting motion, despite everything internally rotating together with the wheel & axle, to drive some other internal workload, such as retracting orbiting mass inwards, and that this feat is only possible if you have some other angular inertia to torque off of. Again, we're only allowed to use angular inertias, and not hanging stators, if we're to take him at his word.

Pre-loading some energy into a spring might give us slightly more ammunition with which to get things moving, but only up to the first cycle, whereafter it needs resetting..

So i have no solutions to this puzzle for now, just trying to lay it out as it must be. Static OB torque, somehow driving some other mechanism, despite the fact that everything's supposed to rotate together. The answer to this riddle - the correct one, anyway - must be a big step towards understanding the source of OU..

[Tarsier79]

I don't think there is any proof there is no stator. You can have a stator rotating at any radius within the wheel, still remaining relatively vertical, but its pivot point rotating around the main axle.

His mention of nothing hanging from the axle is in reference to a driving weight like a grandfather clock. It doesn't mean there aren't hanging weights.

I agree with you that, there must have been an OB component to provide constant torque, or at least mechanisms of overlapping posiive torque. It is also fact that weight path providing OB cannot be the only factor. Just as it is fact that any mech. that gives the required advantage will break laws of physics as we understand them.

The only thing you can be certain of, is that the wheels he displayed were round and covered. The shape, speed size and sound could just as likely be another diversion to hide the true workings of the wheel.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Mr.Viberating,

I'm getting an idea; what if Fletcher is right? You need MT-13 for a fixed reference point, or perhaps I should say a semi-fixed point. The little roller at the top would provided a fulcrum for a lever to lift the weights up at or near the 6 O'Clock position.

The lever would be on more or less a radius with the outer end pined to the wheel somewhere------------then the other end, maybe with a chain, would lift the weight(s) up, as the wheel turns.

What do you think--------------------------Sam

[sleepy]

I think Tarsier is correct.If a witness saw it or heard it,it's because Bessler wanted it that way.As far as MT13 is concerned,there are 5 weights in the drive position,and 7 being lifted.One of those 7 is being lifted and then held in place temporarily by the stator. I think it's balanced as it is drawn,and could only work by getting the weight being manipulated to be in a "drive" position much earlier.Good luck with that. You know,Bessler could have shown Karl a fake mechanism,covering the real mechanism.Like a desk with a false front.

[ME]

I agree with MrV. Unidirectional is key.

It could be interesting to smack two opposites together in the hope it creates a bidirectional: Its static torque will be balanced and likely stuck in some local minimum.

Bessler's wheel was so simple that according to his own accounts, an apprentice carpenter boy could replicate it just after one look at the device.

We could try to stretch Bessler's "carpenter apprentice"-idea to some extreme:
The "magical" missing factor is hinted to be some sort of construction of such an illogical magnitude that only the most naive (but capable) apprentice could replicate (but never invent) such construction: likely a rookie who's able to barely wield a saw and hammer while (yet) lacking insight on the normal mechanical causes and effects, as the mechanism (apparently) swaps them like a magic trick as is promised to 'happen' naturally at the quantum-level..
Any other person who applied even the slightest mechanical insight would probably react like: 'you shouldn't do that', or 'what you did there is pointless'.
IOW: the mechanisms might have been simple to construct, but not necessarily intuitive or easily understood.
So the question may be: what seems pointless but well worth doing...?

Just as it is fact that any mech. that gives the required advantage will break laws of physics as we understand them.

And that's annoying!

[thx4]

All of which seems consistent with this internal angular inertia varying its radius throughout a cycle, and so exercising the 'ice skater effect'.

.

It seems to me to have indicated an effective way to counter the inertia, I deleted the videos since ... 800 views without comments lol.

Since I work on the same principle but with gears, in my opinion, the imbalance should be permanent, but the prototype will have to be much larger, close to 2 meters in diameter, we will see ...

I work with a group in france, on experimente.fr, if it works and only in this case I will present the thing to you.

A ++

[oldNick]

Believe it or not! I have a working wheel!.

There is no stator inside!
OB is not a factor!
CF stops it from destroying itself!

Bessler has given you all the information you require including his principal of PM.....to build your own wheel.

I was lucky enough to be working on a certain PM wheel before I new of Bessler, I even contacted an engineering. patent agent.. who asked what the principal was causing it to move. That was 2006-7.

I never showed it as a PM engine. but using conventional means on a stator less setup.
It,s probably been stolen, so maybe I should share it.

A bit of encouragement would be nice.

[rlortie]

oldNick,

You state you have a working wheel and seek encouragement?

That is a pretty blatant statement to make! What kind of encouragement do you seek? Obviously all who read this will be interested in learning of your alleged success.

I for one will be very interested in learning more. Do you have an operating pro-to-type up and running? Those with an inquiring mind need to know!!

Ralph

[Furcurequs]

Just as it is fact that any mech. that gives the required advantage will break laws of physics as we understand them.

And that's annoying!

What if a working mechanism were to employ laws of physics that are already in the books and/or effects that have already been observed?

The "laws of physics," then, may not be the problem but rather just the "as we understand them" part.

In other words, what if the known "laws of physics" actually allow for things that those who don't really understand them would claim they refute?

I think the distinction may be very important when it comes to where we look for answers.

...for we might need to go back and look more closely at things we believe we already know rather than looking elsewhere and outside of the stuff we may have a tendency to toss aside as being old hat.

Instead of totally new physics, then, the answer may lie in a renewed understanding of old and already accepted physics.

The reason I'm going on about this is that if any one of my own designs were to ultimately work, it could be analyzed as just another dynamics problem.

[oldNick]

I for one will be very interested in learning more.

Ralph

You replied and showed interest, that's all the encouragement required thank you.

I have dismantled my prototype to check for wear, you will understand why when I show you how it works.

Nick

[Ed]

You have a working wheel but no working prototype? How convienient!

[oldNick]

Actually Ed,
My prototype is more advanced than my working wheel! are you saying you don't want to know?

[Tarsier79]

Would you like a paint recommendation? Any White Knight or British Paints spray can will dry and set completely in under 48hrs in most circumstances.

Nic, I w9uld like to beleive you, but I beleive you are a compulsive liar, and are crying wolf once more. It is a pity we have to endure the bad with the good. I hope this build will work for you like it does in your imagination.

[Sam Peppiatt]

oldNick,

The missing factor must be my brain! I don't see how you can have a gravity wheel that's not over balanced?

Sam Peppiatt

[oldNick]

It is a pity we have to endure the bad with the good.

So if the bad is me, the good must be those that are guessing wrong!

Sam, you can.