Flippin' Flywheels

[MrVibrating]

The preferential speed of this radially-moving mass must correspond to a CF:G equilibrium - as noted, the angular-to-linear asymmetry Bessler refers to must be raising a mass by rotation, and then dropping it inwards linearly.

The fact that the output torque can actually rise to match an applied load, as well as reverse its sign, implies that not all the available inertial torque gets applied to the wheel at its normal coasting velocity - so some must be getting lost elsewhere. Braking the wheel thus raises the share of positive torque given to the wheel, as opposed to wherever it's sunk into when the wheel is unloaded.


Closing in, for sure..

[MrVibrating]

Here's an idea:

- a 'Y'-shaped interaction, as described - a mass moves in and out radially, represented by the vertical stalk of the 'Y', in turn inducing paired opposing angular motions, represented by the upper branch of the 'Y' (shades of the AP wheel here huh?)

- so moving a mass outwards activates both armatures in opposing directions

- and likewise, so does moving the mass back inwards again, simply turning the armatures in opposite directions on the return stroke

- the clever bit comes next - on one of these strokes, the angular accelerations are applied to both rotors (the main wheel, and whatever reaction mass constitutes the internal stator)

- on the return stroke however, only one of these angular accelerations is applied, to one or other rotor - so only one rotating armature makes contact with its rotor, the other just flails uselessly, not affecting its rotor


- this, by my feeble reckoning, seems to generate an effective N3 break and a divergent rest frame intermediate between that of the two rotating bodies.

- as a further elaboration, suppose that this secondary rotor is itself composed of a variable MoI - in other words it's another pair of masses that can alter their radii...

- so we can switch its / their MoI up and down, depending on whether it's receiving all the torque from the 'Y'-shaped interaction, or only half of it (the other half going into the wheel...


- there's various permutations possible here, but the basic idea is simple - changing the prevalent conditions into which the inbound vs outbound inertial torques are divided, in a two-stage inertial interaction.



- this might be correlated to the way one pendulum weight on the right side of the Merseburg drawings is depicted 'outside' the system, and also why one is occluded behind the left border, and also the relative alignments of the snap toys on the Toys Page relative to the items A and B. They may be allusions to the same torque asymmetry..

- WRT these items on the Toys Page, i suspect the chain (A) and staff (B) represents this interaction described above - we see five strokes, because it's an open cycle, and ongoing sequence.

- each vertical 'rung' of the chain (A) represents alternating inbound and outbound actions. Each pair of horizontal links represent the pair of inertial torques corresponding to these in/out radial translations.

- the 'T'-shape atop the chain (A) employs the same literal symbolism as the 'Y's shape atop (B) - but whereas the skewed angles of the 'Y' seem to be indicating a pair of unequal angular displacements, the square 'T' is similarly suggestive of an absence of net torque - perhaps perfect cancellation, or simply lack of commutation..

- on the face of it, it seems to be suggesting that (A) commutes only torques of one sign, regardless of their origin - IOW, as i've shown, an outbound mass can generate both negative inertial torque, but also positive torque via conversion of its CF PE, which can be harnessed and converted to torque of either sign

- although i haven't tested this yet, presumably the inverse is true for an inbound mass - it can generate both positive inertial torque, but which can also be applied to induce negative torque, or some balance of both.



The minimum test system thus seems to be one of these Y-shaped interactions, and pair of rotating masses sharing a common axis, potentially with one having a fixed MoI and the other being variable...

We pump a mass in and out radially, and divide each of the two associated +/- inertial torques into a further pair of +/- torques, one sign of which is consistently sunk into a rotor of unvarying MoI (ie. the main wheel & axle body, or 'peritrochium'), and the other of which is always sunk into the second rotor, with varying MoI.

Or something like this... there's only, what, four basic steps to follow up?

1) Generate positive and negative inertial torques

2) Split each one into further opposing torques

3) recombine them asymmetrically between the two leading and trailing Moi's of a composite rotating system

4) the reference frame of the orbiting and radially-varying masses is changing between strokes, from both rotors, to just one or other..

...with just four permutations of which torques can be applied to which rotors, it seems..


Don't care if anyone's following me, i struggle keeping up with myself.. but this seems to be colecting momentum towards an inevitable conclusion, so it's either gonna go splat soon, or else burst through..

[daanopperman]

Mr V

With masses moving in / out , at different raidi , with changing moi , thus with changeing position in a wheel where there are 2 flippen flywheels , to which outside mass will you associate a inside mass if they are on opposing sides of the wheel during the changing of moi .

[daanopperman]

Maybe it is one way of getting the weights on one side of the wheel when on the descending side .

[Fletcher]

Mr V .. Bessler said that weights gained force from their own swinging.

His one-way wheels were with positive torque at the get-go. It is alleged by some that they always had positive torque in any position but I personally can't fathom that scenario. I can imagine more positive torque than negative torque per sector to cause imbalance of rotational forces i.e. momentum accumulation as the causation of his self-moving wheels.

It seems logical given the above that the 'in and out' movement of say weighted levers was caused by gravity. As everyone knows who has designed gravity driven PMM's they don't work. We quote the age old 'height for width' conundrum. What this essentially means is that for any displacement of two weights within a wheel (one farther out from the axle and the other closer to the axle) to give the illusion of the possibility of continuous OOB wheels they have equal positive and negative torques which leads to no torque force imbalance and keeling / eventual stopping.

We know that no leverage technique or mechanics can cause one weight to acquire greater GPE than was given by way of KE and GPE loss of another in that above illusion. Therefore the imbalance of positive torque must come from the actual transitioning of the weights (or weighted levers). Bessler said that nothing could be accomplished without his "connected principle" (i.e one repositioning weight system affecting another thru probably flexible rope and pulley connections).

So it seems that (from MT) there had to be 'connectedness principle"; "correct handle-construction"; correct application of the stork's bills".

MT is literally littered with funky 'A's with the v bar; they are part of every pantagraph / stork's bill / scissor. We know they are just force multipliers and can not increase energy for work to violate CoE. They can however be used to take a circular fall path of weight and turn that into a linear pull or push (somewhat like a Peaucellier linkage but only much more simple). Or conversely take a linear fall path and turn it into a circular push or pull. Everybody who has played with these toys can instinctively see this possibility immediately.

So, taking all above (and considering your excellent self-discussion in this thread) I am left with the conclusion that the connected principle is the key i.e. how the dual displaced weights are physically linked, to cause the excess positive torque for self-sustaining rotation. And we only have a few permutations of linear and circular weight paths. But it points to either an N3 break or MOI disturbance of some hitherto unknown or unrecognized physics benefit. It has the illusion of being a continuous OOB wheel but causation is torque force imbalance, IMO.

Just my shared thoughts as I sync into your thread.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Mr V,

your quote,

Stick stuff to wheel. Wheel make stuff move. Stuff make wheel move.

Got to Love it! Bessler's Wheel in a nut shell.

1) Generate positive and negative inertial torques

I would say, 1) Generate positive torque and reduce the negative torque. If not there is zero inertial torque.

[Fletcher]

Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs, or other hanging weights which require winding up, or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself;

since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity;

and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."

- Johann E. E. Bessler, 1717

Sounds exactly like an ordinary OOB wheel where weight displacements cause torque which turns the axle. But everything must be reset (restore GPE) to its original position and form to complete a cycle. Bessler gives the explanation that it can never find equilibrium (keel position) which is not an ordinary OOB system in which we are well versed.

So I contend that the illusion is an OOB gravity driven system for Bessler's PMM. Bessler may have even believed that at some level. He certainly wrote it up like that. The reality is gravity and mechanics alone cannot create a PMM that forever seeks but cannot find equilibrium !

So something else must have been going on in the odd arrangement of weights and mechanics. That leads to more positive torque than negative torque which pushes thru the equilibrium barrier and limitation of ordinary OOB PMM's.

So in my mind, given that Bessler is unlikely to have invented a new type of unknown mechanics that disobeys the Law of Levers then something in his physical arrangements produced an effect never before seen. That being a machine that seeks but cannot find equilibrium. Since mechanics are standard and adhere to Archimedes Law of Levers then that leaves the "Connectedness Principle" as the prime suspect. He even says nothing can be achieved without it (along with his PM Principle).

IMO's .. the Connectedness Principle, whilst a linkage or sorts, must move connected cross wheel weights in a certain way; one that produces excess positive torque. But it is unlikely that a series of ropes and pulleys are any great secret and significance in themselves, so it must be the cordinated actions that they foster that is the secret mechanical PM Principle. But the cause of the excess torque in one direction is the the true underlying secret of his PM Principle.

And that would seem to be along the lines of what you are dowsing for Mr V, when all said and done.

ETA: Bessler's wheels were large diameter and quite thin cylinders. There were about eight weight movements heard per rotation.

There is a palusible explanation for such a large surface area. That is that the mechs took up a lot of room, especially in one form (shape). And to not overlap mechs (with inherent problems) he needed a large radius which give available space. Furthermore ropes potentially can be either taut or slack at times in any 'connected' design, which means intermittent sagging and that requires room to hang. It also explains why some witnesses could see no weight movements in the outer reaches of his wheel (sighted thru the gaps in the slats).

And his first wheel was only 4 inches thick - his latter wheels 12 to 18 inches thick. The thickness could be increasing (but still relatively thin) to accommodate multiple ropes and pulleys systems, perhaps side by side.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

your quote,

So I contend that the illusion is an OOB gravity driven system for Bessler's PMM. Bessler may have even believed that at some level. He certainly wrote it up like that. The reality is gravity and mechanics alone cannot create a PMM that forever seeks but cannot find equilibrium !

I personally think that the reality is, that gravity and mechanics can create a PMM to forever seek but cannot find equilibrium! Also it would be the laws of leverage that made it work, given that the wheel its self is a lever, and a constant imbalance on one side of the wheel is a constant downward force on one side, thus the wheel is a rotating lever that can do external work.

[Fletcher]

Well TWL .. it could if gravity acceleration was variable or could be shielded but that is not the world I live in - gravity is conservative. No need to rehash old arguments.

I wish to find the causation of Bessler's mysterious wheels that doesn't invoke magic or a fictional mechanism that disobeys Archimedes Law of Levers.

If you find one I'll be more than happy to see it. Many have promised, none have delivered, over the millennia.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

I believe I have found away to use the laws of leverage, for the simple reason I understand them, just as you do. and gravity is conservative no argument there.

Bessler is reported to suggest that he found his PM where everyone looked, and that is where the secret is IMO.

Have I found it? I think I have, but it will take a build to find out, Old school, first get something that works!

You should know me by now, I do lots of experiments and have hundreds of builds to my credit, if I get a hunch I will go with it. If I do succeed it will be from observations from my own experiments, and learning from them.

[Fletcher]

TLW .. I believe you are sincere in your beliefs - it's just that no one has been able to demonstrate how Law of Levers can be used to create lasting disequilibrium in a closed rotating wheel without additional energy entering the system.

I believe I have found away to use the laws of leverage, for the simple reason I understand them, just as you do. and gravity is conservative no argument there.

A brief refute of your argument.

In a circular self-sustaining revolving wheel where weights and mechs (levers) are able to change weight positions internally, by necessity, the weights and mechs must regain their original positions and form (shape). We call this the reset or restoration conundrum.

What it means is that in a revolution of the wheel (which might have multiple mechs, weights, or sectors) there is no NET gain or Loss of GPE.

Yet, for it to accelerate and be self-sustaining at an eventual RPM there must be an accumulation of momentum and KE.

The Law of Levers paraphrased says that no leverage system can, unassisted, give another more GPE than it itself lost. N.B. GPE and KE are interchangeable. In the case of the above mentioned wheel there is no gain in GPE internally but there is a gain in KE. Since GPE and KE are interchangeable then to be an excess of KE implies that one lever system has the ability to give another greater GPE than it itself lost. In that case it would not be obeying the Law of Levers which is counter to your statements.

[jim_mich]

Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs, or other hanging weights which require winding up, or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself;

since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity;

and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."

- Johann E. E. Bessler, 1717

The WEIGHTS are the essential parts.
The WEIGHTS are the perpetual motion itself.
The WEIGHTS produce the movement.
The movement must continue, so long as the WEIGHTS remain...

... and here is the secret ...

Bessler uses the phrase out of the "centre of gravity".

This leads modern PM seekers to think OOB gravity wheel.

The "centre of gravity", as it relates to clocks and watches ...
has an alternate meaning. A double entendre.

This secandary meaning is just as valid as the primary meaning.
Bessler describes his wheel as weights moving in and out.

Bessler was a watch maker. He sometimes used watchmaker's language.

Watches have hair-springs.
The watch balance-wheel ocillates back and forth.
The balance-wheel seeks but never finds equalibrium.
The balance-wheel gravitates to a centre position.
But then momentum carries it past the centre that it seeks.

"remain out of the centre of gravity"
"they can never obtain equilibrium"
"unceasingly seek punctum quietus"

The weights of Bessler's wheel oscillate, one in and one out.
Then they swap positions, and oscillate, one out and one in.

The weights seek "centre of gravity" positions.
The weights seek but never find equalibrium.
The weights seek but never find rest.
The weights seek but never find punctum quietus.

So where are these equalibrium positions which the weights are seeking?
Does this "centre of gravity" have enything to do with Earth gravity?
Do the weights seek gravity balancing positions?
Or is this phrase relating to positions, in and out, that the weights seek?

I know the answer, but do any of you know? Obviously NOT.

Science says OOB gravity PM wheels can't work.
But you guys keep seeking OOB gravity PM wheels.
Bessler wrote that one has to learn through bitter experience.
Or, more accurately, "One each would with loss (get) smart."

Don't believe me.
Toil away until your experience makes you smart.

I'm sorry. End of rant.

PS. Someone stole all my green marbles.
PPS. Thanks for giving back one marble.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Jim,

I do not believe you, it is as simple as that, your options are limited, whereas the gravity driven options are nearly endless and match Bessler drawings and clues far more than a motion wheel, although a gravity wheel would be a motion wheel, or should I say a wheel in motion when built correctly.

So I am backing the best odds (gravity wheels) having understood the pit falls of a motion wheel and why they do not work.

No hard feelings Jim, and I wish you luck with your on going work!

[Fletcher]

And Jim .. watches and clocks use a pre-stored energy source to 'tip' it past the equilibrium point with escapements etc. This runs out without replenishment. Ok, I once had a watch that used the movement of my wrist to self wind itself.

Apparently only Bessler and yourself have a system that self replenishes its internal energy capacity without losing Net GPE - good for you.

Perhaps Mr V can grasp your meaning and insights.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

do not forget the wheel is also a lever, wherein it is a medium to gain and lose GPE and KE when shifting weights from one side to the other. With thanks TLW.

Edit, if a lever system can increase the systems GPE over the norm, then it should increase the KE conversion over the norm, and if the negative forces are also reduced at the same time then the reset should be surpassed to the point where the wheel could be doing external work as well.

I think I need to build this quick, but if something seem to good to be true, it normally is not. I will let you know where the oversight was, if not I will post a video.