Bessler's clues and people's solutions.

[Fletcher]

Hi silent .. I won't quote part of your latest posts, but perhaps can offer this general observation for you to consider as you work thru the mechanics of yours and Dr What's similar designs.

Alto I'm repeating what I've said before on this forum, I think it important enough to say again. You can be the judge.

Regardless of whatever mechanical leverage technique you choose, be that scissors, pulleys, gears, complex levers, etc, they all conform to the 'Law of Levers'. No exceptions I'm afraid.

But what does that mean ? Well it means that gravity force (gf) = m 'g' (where 'g' = a from f = ma and m = mass).

So in order for a mass to move upwards or downwards in a gravity field of acceleration (or potential), when linked to another unequal mass by some means, the Load and Effort masses must gain and lose GPE. So a small mass can leverage upwards a larger mass. But the smaller mass cannot lose less GPE than gained by the larger mass. Or said another way the larger mass cannot gain more GPE than lost by the smaller mass.

GPE gained and lost (Net GPE) is the single overriding factor in whether ANY leverage technique works or not ! Regardless of that technique ! It's the ONLY thing to consider !

IOW's there is ALWAYS a NET GPE Loss represented by a lowering in the system CoM (CoG), after normal frictional losses are accounted for.

That means in practical terms that whilst a 'top heavy' wheel that restores its top heaviness seems an ideal solution for an OOB wheel, it is problematic because it requires NET GPE gain after parts shift positions. Which can't physically be achieved under any arrangement, same as any false OOB wheel design, IMO.

Something to think about when you are working out whats physically happening inside your devices as things move, and why.

[silent]

.

[Fletcher]

I understand your sentiments, having been subject to them myself for many years.

All I can offer is that there are certain mechanical truths (lessons) that we must all learn. Fortunately the list is finite, tho many don't get to the end.

And if we remember them surely we also can eventually find new ground to plough, as must have Bessler.

There are just so many mechanical iterations of how a seemingly OOB wheel can be built.

[agor95]

How you can have a 12 foot wheel spin that fast and not have the guts fall prey to CF. They must somehow rely on CF to accomplish the goal.

silent

With a fast spin rate the weights at 12 feet would accelerate down greater than 9.81.

So the weights need to operate closer to the axle.

Therefore the weights to hit the outer boards with a bang then the rod length can be calculated.

Threat the max rotation speed as an upper limit and chose the axle diameter.

Regards

[Georg Künstler]

the movement of the weights (travel speed) are normally slower then the Speed of CF. Therefore the big build.
Only in the phase when lifted they exceed this Speed.
Think about Besslers words, lifted With a Flash.
the weights itself buildt Up the speed difference when in motion. They have a time to rest, a time to accelerate by gravity, a time to be lifted against gravity.
All this is going on coordinated within the connectedness principle.
The function itself Can be explained as catch the Fall of on Object. The redirection of this Fall is our generator for the imbalance.

[agor95]

Let have an best case:

Spring 'lifted with a flash' a two headed weighted rod.
The acceleration is greater than 9.81 hopefully.

The rod is moved just after vertical.

As the rod is part of a rotating frame the rod weight at the top curves around.
The vertical acceleration increases;
however the rod is moving back to wards the center balance position.

This is done using spring and gravity. The outer weight only supplies torque
when the mass falls less then 9.81 acceleration.

The rod can extend after horizontal to an imbalanced extended state,
However the 'mass falls less then 9.81 acc...' needs to be true.

The combination of gravity and C.F. sets up the rod for the next flash.

P.S. any device that 'lifted with a flash' is on the right track.

Regards

[silent]

.

[MrVibrating]

I really am exasperated with this entire project. I'm fully convinced that there is not really any special mechanism that suddenly summons the powers of the universe into a wheel. I've poured my heart and soul into thinking on this and nothing. You just simply cannot defy gravity because of it pervasiveness. I've read and studied MT to the point I've memorized many diagrams and their numbers. I even went back and reread the clues last night and the more I read the more confused I became. Plus it doesn't help when I come up with an idea, I get land blasted by the critics.

I've gone way back to the beginning of the forum and read many many posts and loooked at pictures ad nauseum and for all the insightful posts that have been made, we are no further ahead right now than we were back then.

I see a lot of talk about pendulums, but the problem with pendulums is they require a constant energy input to keep producing movement. Springs require energy to go into them in order to have any hopes of getting it back out.

Bessler was an arrogant bastard and I've learned to hate his guts profusely. For him to publish a diagram and say, "and yet ye still don't understand?" and then publish biblical texts is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Damn fricken right we don't understand.

If JCs reveal tomorrow goes well then I laud his decision to not patent...if for anything so I can get on with my life. This sucks. If it works and seems legit, I plan to make a sizeable donation to him for his discovery.

If someone does figure it out, I'll be glad and Bessler can do a turn spit roll in his grave for all I care. Humanity could desperately use a tool like this to help in impoverished nations and empower the populace against crooked regimes. To have a knowledge that could really help humankind and then hide it to me is the absolute pinnacle of selfishness. For all the Scripture quoting Bessler did, he sure missed the boat when it came to the proper application of Scripture.

Silent

Really beautifully put - especially regarding a "special mechanism", LOL.

The 'special mechanism' has surely got to be constructed from the elements of motion; from the components of momentum and KE themselves. The 'forge' can only be the standard laws of physics, holding precisely as they're supposed to.. by what means does the universe enumerate and substantiate momentum and KE? By inertia, velocity and the conservation of momentum.

If the game's chess then we gotta learn the rules to play the game. Looking for a "magic mechanism" is like trying to apply wrestling skills instead. "Can i headlock a bishop?".. "i've got it - slap the board till all the opponents pieces fall off!".

A given amount of inertia at a given speed has a given KE, no more, no less. "Excess KE" is oxymoronic.

Thus the rules of the game for mechanical OU reduce to buying cheap momentum - paying less, in terms of F*d or T*a, to raise momentum, than its resulting KE value.

Thus, there is, categorically, some way of defeating the usual constraints of Newton's 3rd law. Bessler only displayed vertical wheels, so it probably involves gravity somehow.

Anyone not singularly focused upon the paradoxical problem of gaining cheap momentum in a statorless vertically-rotating system, is simply not playing the game, might as well be expecting magic, and almost certainly won't be prepared to recognise potential benefits of any N3-busting results they may stumble across inadvertently..

Anyone still trying to leverage up excess weight is simply in the wrong club; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgYEuJ5u1K0

As to the intended meaning of the 'AP wheel' and corresponding scripture, i believe the context is that Bessler is casting his detractors - and IIRC Wagner in particular - as 'hoist by their own petards'; Wagner having effectively condemned his soul by oath on the prospect of Bessler being genuine; hence "were i to reveal my art, the devil might enslave you"..

So, this is the sentiment that provides the context for whatever the AP wheel symbolises to Bessler.

We know Bessler was thinking in terms of quite abstract symbolisms, since he stated he'd "learned heiroglyphics" - implying in the Kircher school of thought predominant at the time. Again, Carl Sagan's approach to the Pioneer plaque is a more familiar example of breaking down complex physics into minimally-complex 'elements' that can be recombined to convey higher-order information..

..and what does the AP wheel show us, but three quarters? It's a graphical representation of 3/4.

Why would that ratio be significant? Again, we must return to the self-defining 'elements' - the implicit ingredients and recipe for the omelette, just on first principles:

• mechanical OU / 'excess KE' is only possible buy cheating N3 and rising stator / rotor velocity on the input energy cost of accumulating momentum

• thus the 'magic' interaction we're looking for is one which enables purchase of momentum at a constant, or speed-invariant, energy cost

• such an interaction thus 'quantises' a unit-energy cost of momentum; a given packet of momentum for a given PE, regardless of speed: since the KE value of momentum squares with speed, we know that n consecutive purchases of that fixed quanta and cost will inevitably cause the diagonal ½mV² plot to punch thru the horizontal per-cycle input energy trace, and keep on climbing as more cheap momentum's piled on..

The value of that 'n' is obviously 5.

The Toys page depicts 5 asymmetric angular accelerations, resulting in "something extraordinary", represented by or representative of the upturned whistling top.

As noted elsewhere, this implies that each of Bessler's momentum-gain cycles was 25% efficient, wasting 75% of input energy per cycle. This type of dynamic arises, for instance, when the momentum is being gained between inertias in a 3:1 ratio; a series of reactionless accelerations and subsequent inelastic collisions between two such inertias perfectly reproduces this 'signature' efficiency envelope..

Thus, where 5/4 (5 * 0.25) = 125% efficiency, and 4/4 (4 * 0.25) = 'unity' or "F*d = KE" (literally personified by the scissorjack)...

.."3/4" (3 * 0.25) represents loss, deficit, failure to transcend - perdition.. for, just as surely as the "5/4" gain is heaven-sent, 3/4 signifies that which lies below the 'worldly plane' where 4/4 (4 * 0.25) = unity = F*d = KE = GPE etc.

The take-home, for us, is that if these 'quarters' are the pennies-from-heaven we need to collect five of, then an asymmetric inertial interaction involving inertias in a 3:1 ratio is squarely in the frame. This obviously may provide further launching-off points for interpreting what a "cross-bar" might relate to, for example, implying one mass in a quadrant of other masses undergoes an asymmetric acceleration in relation to them, followed by a collision with them..

The hammer toys obviously represent mass displacements - reciprocating ones, at that. Their alignments relative to the notches / eyelets on 'A' and 'B' imply that the upper toy is synced to 180° rotations of the main axis, but the lower one, in-between these incidents; so at 90° to the upper toy.

Obviously, as a general point, reciprocating mass displacements in a vertically-rotating system are going to involve GPE and CF workloads..

The differences between how the hammer toys are styled, and the shapes of their anvils etc., are obviously supposed to differentiate them meaningfully with regards to whatever constitutes 'the elements' of a gain interaction. Since they're literally mass displacements, their 'meaningful contexts' must relate to the respective fields through which those displacements substantiate some 'element' of an OU interaction / cycle.

So maybe one represents momentum, versus counter-momentum in the other.

Maybe the dichotomy is, rather, between "momentum" and "energy".

Gravitational workloads (input energy) vs angular inertia, or CF workloads?

Whatever the toys page represents, it must involve the elements of an OU interaction, described in a manner that transcends cultural differences. It's a Pioneer plaque for mechanical OU, and MT / AP establish the 'keys' or 'legend' for whatever the 'elementary quanta' he'd identified as constituting the divine manna..

If the scissorjack literally represents "F*d", AKA "work", a la input energy, then the orientation of the hammer toys with respect to the angle of A & B represents the 'cross bar' (at 90° to one another), and implicitly, an MoI variation, and thus inertial torque, whilst an OB / GPE interaction is in progress. This obviously causes a corresponding acceleration / deceleration of the 'up' vs 'down' legs of the GPE interaction, and subsequent momentum yield. Five such cycles culminate in 125% efficiency, four in 100%, three in 75% etc. Six gets us 150%.

If basic physics and Bessler's BS inevitably have to meet somewhere in the middle, we're pretty much stood on the 'X' right now.. FA to do but keep digging. Radial translations cause inertial torques cause strokes of a GPE interaction to be prolonged and/or hurried, manipulating 'soak times' in respective legs to yield net changes in system momentum. GPE is speed-invariant in principle, but its corresponding momentum profile is time and thus speed-dependent. We just have to reverse-engineer the desired outcome from the available elements. It's a solvable jigsaw. We already know the pieces go together. Just needs the right combination of woolly analogies and 10,000 word essays, surely?

[MrVibrating]

Later on he says that he can't put the matter any more plainly that as one weight goes nearer to the center, the other one goes farther away.

Remember, this may be significant for its inertial torque as much as its GPE value - although you can change GPE without changing MoI, it requires very deliberate design criteria. Generally, changing GPE is gonna change MoI and thus involves work done against CF force..

Have any of you ever simply mounted a drummer toy mechanism in the center of an axle and just spun it manually to watch what it does? I haven't, but I can envision what it does - it would flop forward and both weights would proceed on around until getting nearer to inverted, then both weights roll back to a neutral position and just hang underneath. As it rolls on around, they fall back to position one as the framework they are on continues to spin independently of the weights themselves until once they are all the way back to position 1 and have to be lifted up and over again. They literally are exchanging positions through the rotation - the inner becoming the outer and the outer becoming the inner - all the while working like a spit where there is a momentary thrusting forward and then a delay in coming back up. I mean right off the bat you have an oscillatory action between 2 systems right there - the weights and the mechanism they are affixed to. Now mounting them this way means that the weight is not perfectly in line with the hub - they travel around the hub and hammer down from above during one revolution.

Purely as a GPE system, paired weights produce a very reliable impulse per cycle - the angle it arises at will inevitably drift around as the wheel accelerates up to speed, so for example trying to design a system in which GPE actions are synced to exact angles is difficult, if not impossible. What you'll often end up with is variable GPE per cycle as RPM's increase. But connecting pairs of shifting weights together regulates their activity, ensuring you'll always get one full transition per cycle, up to the maximum RPM possible.

We see lots of different applications of this principle in MT, of which this:



..might be considered a caricature, although you don't see it accelerating across a range of RPM there.. but basically, connecting paired weight transitions stabilises and regulates them, making GPE interactions much more reliable across some range of RPM's.

Is it generally understood the drummer toys represent a mechanism at the core of the machine or is it possible they are located around the periphery of the wheel? Any kind of a triggering mechanism you would want that at the hub so as it minimize the effects of CF I would think. Then use that triggering mechanism to move what you need to on the periphery of the wheel.

The minimum elements of an OU interaction, i suspect - something that needs repeating five times to culminate in "something extraordinary". Since the only real magic is how you generate and gain momentum without recourse to some kind of stator, this must be what the hammer toys are there for - gaining momentum from gravity instead of counter-torquing a stator. Five such installments at 25% efficiency each yields KE at 125% of unity. Nothing else fits the bill from both ends like this..


You obviously appreciate the value of asking the right questions; given that conservation of momentum is more fundamental that conservation of energy, the question of how his wheels gained momentum without torquing a stator is the paramount, most potentially-informative issue.

More rambling thoughts later as they come to me.
silent

Look forwards to it..

[silent]

.

[silent]

.

[Georg Künstler]

the above tracking of the clues and insights are very very good !!

what is missing is the clue "and the axle should also move".
it is clearly stated with this, that the axle is loose.
The axle has room to move.

So any construction with an fix axle can not work !!

You see in Besslers wheels that he has used dowels when he has it constructed.

A rolling weight/cylinder in a Hamster cage make this movement.
it fulfills the function that the axle of the inside rolling cylinder will swing up and down and also left to right.

What is the condition that a wheel/cylinder in the Hamstercage will swing ?
How can it swing from dowel to dowel ?
It will swing from one dowel to the other if you turn the outer Hamstercage.
So you do the action.
But have a closer look to that movement, it is a tilt function. an impact function or you can say a movement with different accelerations.

The big rolling cylinder is a carrier from small cylindrical weights.
I explained that the holes in the carrier wheel are action as an endless lever.
so you generate here an elastic impact which MrVibrating is looking for.

This elastic impact I had described as an indirect impact is a key function of gaining energy from gravity. The reswing of the cylinders are done on different positions of the movable axle.
You lift one weight on the rim, the other nearer to the axle. Act in Pairs.
This is our gain on torque !!

So every clue is included.

[silent]

.

[silent]

.

[silent]

.