Part Three is the Charm

[ovyyus]

So while it is a physical machine it is not a physical simple machine by definition, imo.

Yes, by definition Bessler's mechanism was, IMO, a simple machine that interfaced with and harnessed a source of energy in order to do work. Just as Jamess Cox's simple machine 'true pm' clock interfaced with and harnessed an energy source to do work.

Defining Bessler's energy source is fundamental. A simple machine with no energy source cannot do work.

[agor95]

So we have a wheel 12 feet in diameter with 8 four pound weights.
After giving a light push 3 weights are pull towards the centre
Via an internal spring pulling these items in.

This causes an acceleration to say 54 revolutions per minute.

The other 5 weights are pulled towards the centre too keep the rotation constant for around 54 days.

Regards

[Fletcher]

Here's what W. said about the Merseburg bi-directional wheel. FYI it did a weighted box lifting test and also lifted hollow light stampers in a test IINM (reading W's. comments from both reports).

Translocation Test : He said it was run for about a half hour, internal weights taken out and then translocated, weights put back in and ran about another half hour. That's why he was so vocal in his reports about it being an intrinsic (within force) motion wheel but needed much longer run times to support B's. claim it was true mechanical Perpetual Motion garnered from a 'superior force' or his Perpetual Motion force.

Anyhoo ..

Chapter IX of long version report .. >> On the other hand, at the experiment, before the wheel was set up at another place in different boards, he had taken an amount of weight out of the wheel which could have filled a considerable box, and in the received testimony he expressly admits that the weights are inside and are driven.

Note : W. says B admits the weights are driven - not that the weights drive the wheel.

My contention is that these were not round spheres etc like drawn in MT's 44 and 48 transfer systems .. they were cylindrical shaped about the size of a small can.

If some superior force (energy) DRIVES the wheel around then the shape of the weights, or indeed the type of conservative OOB wheel format makes not a jot of difference - it's the passenger along for the ride and which has a certain momentum to its inclusion.

[agor95]

So we have a wheel 12 feet in diameter with 8 four pound weights.
After giving a light push 3 weights are pull towards the centre
Via an internal spring pulling these items in.

I have attached an old zip file that hold a HTML file.

This has a pre-rotating device that flings weights out against C.F.

I could look at this again but following the directions in my last post.

I all depends who is interested.

Regards

[Fletcher]

So while it is a physical machine it is not a physical simple machine by definition, imo.

Yes, by definition Bessler's mechanism was, IMO, a simple machine that interfaced with and harnessed a source of energy in order to do work. Just as Jamess Cox's simple machine 'true pm' clock interfaced with and harnessed an energy source to do work.

Defining Bessler's energy source is fundamental. A simple machine with no energy source cannot do work.

I might nuance it a bit Bill .. (splitting hairs and perhaps a bit long winded)

His one-directional wheels were 'simple machines' that interfaced with a separate entity, the Prime Mover unit that harnessed a source of energy and gave the wheels excess-momentum in the direction of rotation. So that the wheels could perform Work (mechanical energy) and for all-intents-and-purposes be described as 'Self-Moving', not requiring periodic and traditional energy replenishment in the sense of exhausting and replacing a fuel/energy source, once set in motion within a gravity field.

ETA : this would include James Cox's self-moving clock and Drebble type self-moving simple machines using atmospheric and temperature differences as the environmentally "replaced" motive force or energy.

** Here I draw the difference to Bessler Wheels as a separate sub-class of environmental machines, not requiring a physical interface for heat or pressure exchange and/or replenishment.

"A simple machine with no energy source cannot do work."

Quite true - that's always been the case and is pretty much all we know, except perhaps at the grand scale of celestial bodies in motion etc. "Energy" is converted into mechanical energy. Even then we know that energy (kinetic/movement) and momentum derive from both mass and velocity which they share in common. IMO !

[Tarsier79]

and in the received testimony he expressly admits that the weights are inside and are driven.

I thought he said the weights provide the motive force? I guess they could both provide motive force by being driven into position.

[mryy]

John Collins AP translation :

XXI (b)
Wagner seems almost to have run out of fancies. He says nothing
can be achieved with "mechanical implements", the gist being that
my Mobile must be impossible because I designed it to be driven by
some "mechanical power". But did I not, in Part One, devote more
than one line to a discussion of the type of "excess impetus" that
people should look for in my devices? Once more I will humbly extol
the virtues of this passage to my next worthy reader. Even Wagner,
wherever he is now, will have heard that one pound can cause the
raising of more than one pound. He writes that, to date, no one has
ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required
task. He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why? What if I
were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then
people would say: "Now I understand!”


I thought I revisit this passage again. What I believe is the real point was not touched on, now that I had time to reflect. Back in the thread there was a discussion about a clue concerning 1 lb dropping 1 quarter and 4 lbs shooting up 4 quarters. The underlined sentence above is about that clue. Agreed?

I maintained that it is a riddle of the prime movement (In my wheel concept it's the flying red weights circulating forever on the descending side.) Because it is a riddle -- which only crafty B. knows -- the literal or creative interpretation of it will decide the answer. Literally speaking, the riddle is not possible and W. is right. Creatively speaking, the riddle is possible and B. is also right. Thus we read his statement "He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why?" Now if B. were to reveal the wheel's internal mechanism and explain it in terms of the riddle, the "people would say: 'Now I understand!' "

I believe that was the real point of the passage. That is, one pound causing the rise of more than one pound is a riddle of the prime movement.

[Sam Peppiatt]

mryy, One thing I finally figured out, FWEIW, both f@cking weights are the same. The reason that they have to be the same, is because they are constantly swapping places. If they weren't the same, the godam thing could never work. Why, is that so difficult to understand----------------------------------------------------Sam

[ovyyus]

A simple machine with no energy source cannot do work.

Quite true - that's always been the case and is pretty much all we know, except perhaps at the grand scale of celestial bodies in motion etc. "Energy" is converted into mechanical energy. Even then we know that energy (kinetic/movement) and momentum derive from both mass and velocity which they share in common. IMO !

AFAIK all work requires energy. Is there an example of celestial work done without an energy source?

[Fletcher]

<< Thus we read his statement "He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why?" Now if B. were to reveal the wheel's internal mechanism and explain it in terms of the riddle, the "people would say: 'Now I understand!' "

I believe that was the real point of the passage. That is, one pound causing the rise of more than one pound is a riddle of the prime movement.>>

In any OOB wheel build, whether it be one likes yours mryy, or MT13, or MT9 etc for example. They are designed to rotate and thus every weight and spoke (point mass) etc must return to the same geographical position once per rotation. IOW's they can not gain MORE GPE .. they can only hope to replenish original GPE each cycle. They are locked into an orbit path.

So B. saying "that one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound" isn't that surprising. It's a well known fact. It's called Law of Levers, Leverage, sometimes Mechanical Advantage (MA). What isn't always appreciated is that it is a very real physical trade-off, a ratio, a percentage. A lesser effort / driver weight can lift a larger load weight but not as high as the driver must lose in GPE.

Mechanical Advantage (MA) x Speed Ratio (SR) = 1.0 (ideal with no friction losses etc) n.b. speed is distance over time.

Since GPE loss is interchangeable with KE gain over the same vertical height under gravity constant acceleration (Galileo's experiments) then W. is right.

But B's. wheels not only restored GPE each rotation but also gained in RKE i.e. gained in momentum. IOW's they couldn't break the Law of Levers either (W's. right), but still had the ability to gain speed and momentum / RKE (B's. excess-impetus, preponderance, W's. superior force ...... B's right as well).

IMO !

.............

[Fletcher]

A simple machine with no energy source cannot do work.

Quite true - that's always been the case and is pretty much all we know, except perhaps at the grand scale of celestial bodies in motion etc. "Energy" is converted into mechanical energy. Even then we know that energy (kinetic/movement) and momentum derive from both mass and velocity which they share in common. IMO !

AFAIK all work requires energy. Is there an example of celestial work done without an energy source?

Well Bill, I think I'll stick with the Newtonian world for now lol. Quantum Mechanics and the study of the VERY BIG universe might behave a little different - or we don't know exactly what the energy / work relationship is in those realms.

If we could figure it out we might be able to explain why the universe is expanding faster and faster i.e. what physical process is causing the ever increasing expansion rate. Yeah .. we have theories about dark energy and dark matter, and there are other competing theories. And in the quantum world we have strange quantum entanglement - so far I haven't heard what the physical energy source is to cause one particle to align its spin (do work) etc (at the same instant) over vast comparative distances.

I guess someday someone will connect a real physical energy source to the end result in both realms i.e. the mechanical outputs, maybe !

It's above my pay-grade lol.

[ovyyus]

Fletcher, I agree there's a lot we don't know about the wide beyond. Yet we still observe, at least in our neck of the woods, that all work requires energy. I doubt Bessler found a loophole for that one. So I'm still left with the same fundamental question: What was Bessler's energy source? Certainly there was one. Maybe, after all these years, it's become just another rhetorical question :)

[Fletcher]

While it has become a rhetorical question Bill, it is no less valid an argument that there must be an energy source input that gets converted to mechanical energy output i.e. an increase in momentum output in an ever-circulating closed path system of rising and falling weights.

ALL science thru the ages suggests this is a true statement - you and I are in agreement on that premise. I'd even say it was an axiom.

So I'm still left with the same fundamental question: What was Bessler's energy source? Certainly there was one.

Ans .. the 'fuel source' is buried within the Toy's Page, to be unlocked with creative imagination (otherwise It'd be done by now) - since I can't find anything in there that breaks the Law of Levers (is not conservative other than frictions etc), nor is a known PHYSICAL source of 'fuel / energy', to give us the required mechanical energy output, then I conclude 2 things from that exercise.

1. the 'energy source' is not self-evident (or commonly known about); perhaps is well disguised, and/or deftly hidden.

2. a combination of Newtonian Mechanics on that page, when assembled and applied correctly, gives rise to an excess-impetus to the wheel which for all-intents-and-purposes has the outward appearance of a physical fuel / energy input to a wheel creating mechanical energy output from the wheel, but it is not !

[mryy]

<< Thus we read his statement "He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why?" Now if B. were to reveal the wheel's internal mechanism and explain it in terms of the riddle, the "people would say: 'Now I understand!' "

I believe that was the real point of the passage. That is, one pound causing the rise of more than one pound is a riddle of the prime movement.>>

In any OOB wheel build, whether it be one likes yours mryy, or MT13, or MT9 etc for example. They are designed to rotate and thus every weight and spoke (point mass) etc must return to the same geographical position once per rotation. IOW's they can not gain MORE GPE .. they can only hope to replenish original GPE each cycle. They are locked into an orbit path.

But my wheel isn't the typical "tethered" OOB build. It resets the center of gravity cog each time a free flying weight lands at 2:00. That makes a big difference I think. The wheel has a new cog to act upon multiple times per rotation. A build out will determine if my theory is correct.

So B. saying "that one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound" isn't that surprising. It's a well known fact. It's called Law of Levers, Leverage, sometimes Mechanical Advantage (MA). What isn't always appreciated is that it is a very real physical trade-off, a ratio, a percentage. A lesser effort / driver weight can lift a larger load weight but not as high as the driver must lose in GPE.

Mechanical Advantage (MA) x Speed Ratio (SR) = 1.0 (ideal with no friction losses etc) n.b. speed is distance over time.

Since GPE loss is interchangeable with KE gain over the same vertical height under gravity constant acceleration (Galileo's experiments) then W. is right.

But B's. wheels not only restored GPE each rotation but also gained in RKE i.e. gained in momentum. IOW's they couldn't break the Law of Levers either (W's. right), but still had the ability to gain speed and momentum / RKE (B's. excess-impetus, preponderance, W's. superior force ...... B's right as well).

IMO !

If that was the issue at hand, W. would not have remarked "that, to date, no one has ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required task." I'm sure W. knew what MA (Leverage) is but that was not what was being addressed.

I feel the context of the translated XXI passage makes more sense with my explanation of a riddle. Pay attention to the wording of these sentences:

"But did I not, in Part One, devote more than one line to a discussion of the type of 'excess impetus' that people should look for in my devices? Once more I will humbly extol the virtues of this passage to my next worthy reader. He writes that, to date, no one has ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required task. He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why? What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: 'Now I understand!' ”

B. says "He's right!" with an exclamation mark. W.'s stance is the undeniable truth. B. soon follows with "So am I" as an affirmation that seems secondary/subordinate to the first. B. and W. are simultaneously right about the ability of mechanical arrangements. So how can this apparent paradox be? The answer is at the end when it elicits a reaction of "Now I understand!" with an exclamation mark -- implying a surprised, unexpected understanding. A riddle can do that.

IMO your explanation doesn't quite dovetail with the contextual information. You speak of prime mover and simple machines. These two are supposedly different entities and cannot produce responses of a paradoxical nature.

[Fletcher]

>> But my wheel isn't the typical "tethered" OOB build. It resets the center of gravity cog each time a free flying weight lands at 2:00. That makes a big difference I think. The wheel has a new cog to act upon multiple times per rotation. A build out will determine if my theory is correct.

It would reset a new COG/COM each time a red flying weight lands at 2.00 pm etc. What would happen is that the system COM would follow an oval shape (circular..ish), with a rapid climbing of the COG/COM when the red weight flies upwards. The questions as I see them are is there going to be asymmetric torque i.e. more positive torque than negative torque ? Does the circular COM path spend all its time on the descending side of the axle or some of the time ? The next question is that it is an APPLIED leverage driven machine (simple machine) - can the yellow weights set the catches and springs so that the levers can fling the red weights high enough (gain sufficient GPE) to complete the cycle ? If so it would on the face of it seem to be breaking Law of Levers, imo. Believe me I want you to succeed.

A build will be required to answer these questions ultimately.

>>

>> If that was the issue at hand, W. would not have remarked "that, to date, no one has ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required task." I'm sure W. knew what MA (Leverage) is but that was not what was being addressed.

He does, and discusses it in great detail in the critiques.

I feel the context of the translated XXI passage makes more sense with my explanation of a riddle. Pay attention to the wording of these sentences:

"But did I not, in Part One, devote more than one line to a discussion of the type of 'excess impetus' that people should look for in my devices? Once more I will humbly extol the virtues of this passage to my next worthy reader. He writes that, to date, no one has ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required task. He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why? What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: 'Now I understand!' ”

B. says "He's right!" with an exclamation mark. W.'s stance is the undeniable truth. B. soon follows with "So am I" as an affirmation that seems secondary/subordinate to the first. B. and W. are simultaneously right about the ability of mechanical arrangements.

Er hat recht, Ich auch, wer’s erkenn’t? // He is right, and so am I, who can tell? // He's right, me too, who recognizes it?

So how can this apparent paradox be? The answer is at the end when it elicits a reaction of "Now I understand!" with an exclamation mark -- implying a surprised, unexpected understanding. A riddle can do that.

Wird’s heißen: Nun versteh’n wir das; // Will it be said: Now we understand this; // It will mean: Now we understand that;

IMO your explanation doesn't quite dovetail with the contextual information.

You speak of prime mover and simple machines. These two are supposedly different entities and cannot produce responses of a paradoxical nature.

A simple machine APPLIES leverage i.e changes forces in and out, usually to do Work.

N.B. as Bill said above that always requires an ENERGY source to be leveraged into Mechanical Work Output of a usable kind.


If a Prime Mover 'unit' has inherent leverage mechanics but DOES NOT physically apply (by direct contact) that MA to the wheel internals, then it is NOT a simple machine. Because the leverage is NOT APPLIED to change forces or convert an energy input source to mechanical energy output. But yet the wheel gains momentum from excess-impetus force. The paradox of different responses in my mind is answered because one is a Simple Machine, and the other is not ! IMO !