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

[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. ...

Note that in the first stanza B. talks only about power (not speed). He says regardless of size (diameter) he can calculate the power output to a fine degree. This suggests a physical principle that is entirely measurable and predictable, imo. Within the lines he writes (rather than at the end) he could also add more than one wheel to the same axle. Presumably if they were the same internally he could double or triple or quadruple or quintuple (pentuple) the power output by that duplication method. That suggests a wide range of power outputs available to him depending on factors such as expense, need, reliability, space etc. It also suggests that diameter is not the main limiting factor to power output (tho obviously important).

... 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!

In the second stanza he doesn't talk about power directly. He talks about speed. And this relates to Wagner's comments about power output should be reduced, which he was answering. Here imo B. does relate speed to power output by suggesting that if he adds more bars, pulleys, and weights, it can revolve much faster and throw Wagners lack of power calcs out the window.

Therefore imo number of internals (lever-weights) equates to power and speed output !

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

Probably could ! Especially if he duplicated on the same axle. IMO the cross-bar reference is to sets of four (revolves very slowly with little power to turn itself) i.e. the basic (but not exclusive) denominator or upscaling factor. You'll have noted that many of the MT9 family are 16 arms.

ETA: but only about 8 sounds were heard per revolution in the Merseburg wheel. Perhaps suggestive that he was horse trading multiples for the dual-directional wheel.

Mechs 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 24
Degrees 90, 72, 60, 45, 40, 36, 30, 24, 22.5, 20, 18, 15

[Georg Künstler]

daxwc wrote:

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

It can be be fourfold fivefold or x-fold because the output power is frequence dependent. A higher frequency will produce more output power.

You can use a weight plate as an example, you can move it slowly up and down to train your muscles.
But then you can move the weight plate at a higher frequency, which requires more energy.

[Tarsier79]

Did Bessler know that 2 x speed = 4 x power? I imagine he would.

Some of B's mechanisms make clattering, and some others didn't. I wonder if he moved weights 1/2 way in on the quieter models.... Hence fourfold power if he moved them back out? Alternatively, perhaps he could fit 4x as many weights in what was his current design?

[Fletcher]

Continuing the theme of this thread. I have pulled these posts in dax's topic to this topic.

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 543#180543

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 546#180546

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 548#180548

To recap : I am investigating in this topic a theory of how a purely mechanical PM wheel might arise.

I presume that the Law of Levers of mechanics is beyond reproach in that more GPE can not be given to an object than the Work (f x d) done on it, re. the tennents of the Work Energy Equivalence Principle.

Therefore I do not attempt to imagine any such device but attempt to turn the problem of asymmetric torque generation on its head.

The approach being to employ mechanical torque cancelling technology (if it can be found and is practical) which is akin to noise cancelling theory for acoustics for those struggling to understand the goal.

At the same time attempting to identify candidates for Bessler's Prime Mover technology, that might also be purely mechanical in origin.

This lead me initially to investigate the MT9 gang-jack lever-weights family of wheels in MT. To transfer combined weight-force and do Work elsewhere. And ways to tweak the basic design to minimise back-torque. Then add back positive torque with a Prime Mover analogue, being a looped chain (based on possible chain clues in the Toy's Page). It seems the gang-jack could hold out to the side a light weight chain for OB.

Part of the investigation was to additionally find a second lw system to aid the torque cancelling philosophy of the theory.

Subsequently I also dusted off an old approach for a Prime Mover (ditching the chain drive for positive OB contribution), that being the use of a physical fixed run-out ramp for the deployed ganged lws to work against in lieu of the chain approach. This was based on what I thought was signaled as important within MT13.

Sims were encouraging showing that the ganged lws could deploy against the fixed inverted and curved run-out ramp pulling the entire wheel around against the system negative torque successfully.

Below is a linear version of a fixed ramp study I have updated. It is a rework of the original Galileo Inclined Ramp Experiment. I was sim testing to confirm the driver weights (5 & 10 kgs) would fall at the same rate because of the same acceleration (they do), and also test the yellow rollers at different leverage positions.

The upshot is that vertical height is converted to horizontal speed (velocity). Which confirms that mgh = Translational KE. (no friction losses)

This was implemented in a gang-jack arrangement. The ganged lws were obliged to pull themselves and the whole wheel around until they ran out of ramp or were fully deployed within a sector.

Thus we have a question mark for thought and investigation. Does it need an additional torque cancelling vehicle to supplement the gang-jack and Ramp Prime Mover ? Most probably.

Because the gang-jack can create and redirect weight-force to do Work. That Work in this instance is to pull the wheel around on the ramp run-out track (giving the wheel momentum), providing that a gradient exists for the system to lose GPE while in contact with the fixed ramp.

Can it also, at the same time as running-out, do Work elsewhere to aid torque asymmetry ?

And what would that look like mechanically if it could do both jobs simultaneously i.e. create momentum and aid torque asymmetry ?

[Tarsier79]

What am I missing here? Why are you using 2 different weights at the bottom?

[Fletcher]

To show that at any height loss the horizontal velocity is the same regardless of the weight-force. That is, the acceleration 'g' is constant. Galileo's experiment.

So the ganged lws also apply a weight-force to the ramp when in wheel format. Presumably the momentum given to the entire wheel is proportional to that applied weight-force if the acceleration does not change.

However, if we want the ganged lws to do two jobs at the same time e.g. run-out on the ramp giving momentum to the wheel and lift something somewhere else, then also presumably the applied weight-force (acceleration) to the ramp is less i.e. less momentum given.

Because part of that wf is now lifting something elsewhere.

But .. we know from Galileo that the velocity of any mass at any height doesn't change - we do know that Momentum = mv.

So can we do both jobs at the same time ? Or is it a one for one trade-off with no advantage by job sharing ? That's the thought experiment i.e. is there a grey area here or is it black and white ?

Just as background.

B. makes a song and dance about MT12. Lots of shaking. Ramps always win !! Why is that ? My previous experiments with fixed ramps showed they were very inefficient, spectacularly so - didn't even get close to reset. And it's not the frictions imo.

So the idea was to perhaps turn that 'ramps winning way' into some kind of physical advantage for us with a plus result instead of negative i.e. invert the problem.

Here's a video by Veproject1 on ramps. Why doesn't it work ? No ganged lws there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5O5O2dz3Ls&t=46s

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Fletcher,
what is a moving ramp ? A moving ramp is a Hamster cage.

An object standing in this Hamster Cage will fall and produce an impact on the downgoing side.

In the German translation of the poitive Feedback loop you can find the sentence
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_ ... ckkopplung

Umkippen eines Gegenstandes: liegt der Schwerpunkt eines ungestützten Gegenstandes lotrecht außerhalb seiner Standfläche, kippt der Gegenstand um. Je weiter außerhalb sich der Schwerpunkt befindet, desto schneller kippt der Gegenstand und verlagert seinen Schwerpunkt dabei noch weiter nach außen.

The Hamster Cage is a moving ground.
Anything in the Hamster Cage and is not bound will tumble,
I have tried to achive this tumbling with an octagon in many versions.
http://kuenstler-energie.de/
You have seen the walker version.
The internal carrier the octagon is therefore carrying 8 pendulum, or you see 8 eccentric weights.

An impact will create an swing upwards of every eccentric weight,
An up with a flash.
I had choosen the octagon because the impact will create an swing upwards of every eccentric weight,
An up with a flash.
I had choosen the octagon because the eyewithesses
said that 8 noises were recognized during one turn of the wheel.

The impact was applied hereby at about 8 o'clock or 4 o'clock depending on the turning direction.
I know everyone proved that wrong, but I managed to get the impact point at 10:30 or 1:30 depending on the turning direction.

I have described it already how this can be done with a collapsing window.
A window will collapse and hit the rim on the upper area of the wheel.
A square will be changed to a parallelogram.
During the collapse it produces torque.
It will be a parametric oscillation with a feedback loop.

We have to change it in a positive feedback loop.
The collapsing window will make 4 hits per turn, so I had to look wherefrom are the other 4 hits.

I changed the parametric oscillation into a parasitic oscillation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_oscillation

I can't tell you more about it in the moment because I've applied for a patent for this device.
The Patent name is "Gravitationskonverter der Rupferer".

[Tarsier79]

MT12 Wiki:

No. 12: This only shows the present and previous weight-principle in passing: one is able to discern somewhat below here at A and downward that the weights do not hang very far out but lie nearer the center, and, moreover, upon revolution the weights do not fling out very much to the side and cause a great shaking.

is this an accurate translation? Weights do not fling out....to cause a great shaking.

He doesn't want the weights to move very far so the wheel shakes less. Remember one of his wheels shook the support posts.

[daxwc]

This is what I was asking before. Is he trying to fling them into the z plane or just fling after it gets off the ramp? I would say ramp, but why not just say the levers need flexible arms?

[Fletcher]

JC's MT Hard Copy :

No. 12 As one can see at the lower part of the lighter side; from A down, this illustration shows only incidentally, by means of the present and preceding weight principle, that the weights do not project so far out but lie closer to the center and furthermore do not swing out to the side so much and thereby cause the wheel to shake a great deal.

Wiki :

No. 12 This only shows the present and previous weight-principle in passing: one is able to discern somewhat below here at A and downward that the weights do not hang very far out but lie nearer the center, and, moreover, upon revolution the weights do not fling out very much to the side and cause a great shaking.

"Much ado about nothing" - a great deal of words and explanation written (with the first A label when not necessary) to tell us the lws are forced upwards and inwards on contact with the ramp. And on first contact with the bottom of the ramp there was quite a collision that shook things (and probably noise).

He forgets to tell us it doesn't work.

[WaltzCee]

Can it also, at the same time as running-out, do Work elsewhere to aid torque asymmetry ?

Multi-tasking. In anarchist algebra it's the principle of one for you, two for me.

This thread is an excellent read. I can't wait for the book.

[Fletcher]

Walt .. if you like this thread you should like dax's topic "Bessler's possible afflatus". It dovetails into this one sharing common themes and directions, but seen thru a different lens from my perspective.

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 800#180800

In short I've identified two possible Prime Mover candidates, to my satisfaction, which would suit my theory.

i. the external looped chain around the ganged roller-weights as seen in this thread. This adds back positive imbalance positional-torque to the wheel.

ii. the fixed position inverted run-out ramp on which the ganged roller-weights release their pent-up weight-force as they lose combined GPE adding positive drive-torque to the wheel.

The second and a major part of the system is to effectively introduce torque-cancelling mechanics into the equation so that the positive drive-torque can overcome the carrier system attenuated torques.

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 645#170645

Working thru it .. and .. about to start a mock-up build of what I think may mechanically pave the way forward for the attenuated torque result that I am looking for to support this theory. If the wheels don't come off ;7) All going well that is - life sets its own priorities !


The summed result theoretically being a surplus of positive torque (excess-torque <>>) to cause and continue rotation.

...........

Write a book - LOL - I couldn't fill 8 pages worth reading let alone 800 !

[WaltzCee]

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 .. ...

. . .

When I consider your quote, I get an image of the larger self-sustaining energy being feed
into the smaller wheel and driving it. Maybe the precursor to a synthetic gravity field.

Cause & effect.

Best wishes with it.

[Georg Künstler]

If you search Besselers texts you will find something like that.

I can make the wheel small or big, and can calculate the power output up to the specific degree.

So what he is saying with this is, that he can calculate the force and the power output of the wheel.

From my own experiments I can tell you that the power output is frequence dependant. A higher frequency will produce more power.

A smaller wheel, turning with higher frequency will produce more power than a big, slow rotating wheel.

[Tarsier79]

So, does adding conneting strings help a mechanism like THXs MT13?
https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 869#180869
He already has the ramp. Does adding strings of a certain length actually help pull up, or will it hinder the weights already lifted around 12:00?