MT thoughts ;7)

[daxwc]

It might allow it to compact itself more. If the left-hand side went fully closed then the weight could rest on the beam. Of course this word mean a slot for the rod arms and joint to through in the beam itself. The final product would be perfect balance.

[Georg Künstler]

If the bows are springs, then you get a kind of repelling. So the forces you get twice from the rebounce. It is an overswinging.

[daxwc]

That is an interesting idea Georg that might be backed up by the eyewitness statement. Also a long time ago I suggested that M24 had a spring in the main arm due to it is bent into the z plane. So it might be a continuation of an idea to load the folding arms themselves.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... er=user_id

[daxwc]

Bessler wrote:

MT No. 24: This invention ought not to be scorned.

It consists of separate levers with weights. Between the weights are small iron poles with screw threads. The poles fall inward when the levers close.

There is something one must learn first before one can grasp and correctly understand the good quality of the invention.

Any thoughts fletcher on what it was we were to learn? Also did he give the lesson already as in before MT 24?

[Fletcher]

MT No. 24: This invention ought not to be scorned.

It consists of separate levers with weights. Between the weights are small iron poles with screw threads. The poles fall inward when the levers close.

There is something one must learn first before one can grasp and correctly understand the good quality of the invention.

Any thoughts fletcher on what it was we were to learn? Also did he give the lesson already as in before MT 24?

No. 25: This is the previous model except for some differences. It is sketched with longer poles. There is something misleading about the diagram, for the poles, when coming out, must not project so far out but must bend somewhat further inwardly. There is more to it than one supposes; one must study the diagram extensively.

Hi dax .. I include B's MT25s comments to be 'pondered' along with his MT24s comments.

I also include my post to Mr V from this thread a couple of weeks ago in which I outline my current focus. Saves me writing it again.

And I include one of Oystein's latest contributions to your 'conjecture thread'. It is well worth reading again here and in the context of your questions, IMO.

Thanks for your tuppence Mr V, always appreciated ..

Funnily enough I keep coming back to a similar analysis. Momentum based asymmetry.

I've been running your kind of general scenarios on my white board and in my head for the last week or so, with a renewed interest again after a long time away from that direction. It was always a pet theory that if we could find a mechanical Prime Mover made of levers that would allow FULL momentum transfer of collisions of different masses then the excess KE would be a doddle. And then use that excess KE to lift lws and get torque asymmetry.

The conceptual chain seems dandy but finding that particular mech is the real problem for this to have a chance of working in practice. I've been playing with the sim program to see if the current iterations can show a gain which is effectively a CoE violation. So it means a careful and objective look at the basics of momentum and KE, so I don't go right on past something important in the hunt that perhaps the sim can't show (capped ETA: meaning the sim is default programed to conform to CoE and CoM in a trickle-up manner).

I may well start a separate thread to discuss the basics of momentum and KE, because I sometimes confuse myself especially when talking about FoR. I seem to have some situations where the sim program seems to treat things differently than what I'd expect ?! Don't have a firm conclusion about that just yet. But I've been running slightly different experiments trying to approach the same problem from different angles and I'm not understanding all I'm seeing in sim world. Probably no surprise there ;7)

Re: conjecture thread on MT25 .. If so (sic i.e. fixing the drawing), this is in line with MT 4 as I showed earlier. (mine: halving the square, or doubling the square depending on your perspective)

And lastly the geometric formula of Socrates and Plato's dialogues that the Geometry of MT seems to be made up of[/b].

At this point I will not discuss if this was Besslers intention!! The Geometry and the missing lines fits the same method as before.

At first glance there appears nothing mechanically special about either MT24 or MT25. Neither will produce asymmetric torque and will always end up balanced.

In MT25 as Oystein has pointed out (correctly IMO) there is the halving of the square geometry from Plato's and Meno's slave discussion to be seen with only a little bit of imagination. Many more are probably deeply buried by comparison to MT25. Also as Oystein says the whole of MT seems to be about the geometric formula of Socrates and Plato's dialogues (I'll take that on board). So if all of MT is in this vein then there must be a greater dynamic mechanical purpose behind their inclusions !

And this brings us back to the seemingly un-extraordinary MT's 24 and 25. The only point of difference of these two being the use of the V poles. And V pole analogues are part of how a SB mechanically operates (and we are told by B that there is something special behind the SB).

And IMO that is the "something one must learn first before one can grasp and correctly understand the good quality" wrt MT24. In MT25 B tells us to look again (intensely) because he tells us plainly "that there is more to it than one supposes". The halving (or doubling) of the square geometry is to point us back to the diagonals of the square (i.e. the hypotenuse, 1^2 + 1^2 = 2 .. therefore the diagonal length and square sides ratio is 1.414. But that is not why we are to look there IMO. That is incidental detail. The real purpose is to point us to the morphing V shape, representing the diagonal.

Update: I have been building sims, some complex and some simplified down dramatically to get to the crux of the mechanical application issues. I'm trying to pin down the math of a theory at the same time. It's slow going as I try to trick the sim to giving up something useful. Not easy to fool it. Sometimes I get the result I would predict from the mechanical arrangement and application I am investigating, and other times the results are un-predictable. And its not the usual suspects.

In essence I am investigating a theory and mechanical application I dreamed up (from a series of thought experiments) to fully transfer momentum between objects of dissimilar masses, which, committing physics heresy, could lead to a gain in TKE and GPE above energy input cost.

In that way MR V and I are plodding similar paths of reasoning tho I'm staying away from angular momentums. His sims however seem to be consistent while my linear practical application sims are a headache atm. Until I get them sorted out with luck.

ETA: prior to MT24 B tells us we need the correct handle-construction. IOW's we need to input some Work, IMO.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

In MT25 as Oystein has pointed out (correctly IMO) there is the halving of the square geometry from Plato's and Meno's slave discussion to be seen with only a little bit of imagination. Many more are probably deeply buried by comparison to MT25.

No, some take even less imagination like the under construction of MT 74. They are there to as a blatant sign post to grab your attention and bring awareness.
Although I agree with you and Oystein, I will play Devil’s and point out that there is no border in MT 25. So you are assuming it is square around a circle. If you take away the border then the only similarity to Meno's slave is the cross and the rod extentions on one side. Because these rods come out at the top which would be a very normal place to put them if one was to just to design it with no knowledge of Meno, so hardly high on the coincidence side it has to be so.
That being said there is other occurrences of doubling the cube, which isn’t that extraordinary, it is one of the quests all good mathematicians should seek according to the comments in DT.

Also as Oystein says the whole of MT seems to be about the geometric formula of Socrates and Plato's dialogues (I'll take that on board).

My view is it is much more about Pythagoreanism than it is about Plato and Socrates. To take that on board one would need a lot more evidence then one MT. I have a suspicion that Oystein is following letters around MT drawings. If that is true, then he is going to come up with reacurring patterns of which none might have anything to do with a magical mechanical device. Just my opinion; change my mind.

So if all of MT is in this vein then there must be a greater dynamic mechanical purpose behind their inclusions !

I have the exact opposite view. If you need to include a complex underlying construction (besides border and setup triangles) then have to draw an image to fit it your options become limited. So the more obvious geometric shapes or ideas have the least information to the solution in them mechanically. Most of what Bessler does is blasting propaganda; I am in a secret society watch me fan my peacock tail at the unknowing.




Fletcher:

I've been running your kind of general scenarios on my white board and in my head for the last week or so, with a renewed interest again after a long time away from that direction. It was always a pet theory that if we could find a mechanical Prime Mover made of levers that would allow FULL momentum transfer of collisions of different masses then the excess KE would be a doddle. And then use that excess KE to lift lws and get torque asymmetry.

I agree to a point. Instead of momentum transfer of collisions of masses to momentum transfer between MOI. Is the energy waste of a collision really that helpful? Wouldn’t a slingshot effect be better?

[daxwc]

Opps, just noticed your update. I am better late then never ;)

[daxwc]

As far as I know Meno’s slave is the only geometry lesson in Socrates and Plato's dialogues. So in essences you guys are saying all MT’s are about doubling the cube?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plato/

[Fletcher]

The way I read Oystein's comments that I quoted it sounds like halving and doubling the square is the re occurring geometry in MT. Unless I misunderstood him.

I know from my own amateur attempts at deciphering MT I went from the Toys Page to MT41. This thru a series of connections that I outlined previously. It was a brutal unsophisticated approach like bludgeoning an encryption with a super computer. Not a lot of finesse on my part. You and Oystein are more adept at it and are likely to find most of the sign posts, and might even end up at some other MT. I did however find two 3-4-5 RAT's based on the A's positions in MT41 which is other 'sacred' geometry.

FWIW I am banging on about finding a Prime Mover mech whose application can give an OOB wheel additional GPE (lift the lws) to cause imbalance, or torque asymmetry. And I'm attempting to manipulate momentum/impulse to achieve this.

[daxwc]

Adept! Nah, I am more of the style of toe nail manicuring with a weed eater; sheer will over skill. Hopefully observation and reason will be as good as real algebraic geometry interpretation.

Anyway from his comments in MT 25 I thought maybe there was a prior lesson we already missed on a hidden real mechanical application.

[MrVibrating]

Re. Mt 24 / 25 - salient details to me are the fact that the mechanism couples a gravitational interaction, in the angular plane, with an inertial interaction in the radial plane - IOW an inter-reaction between two different types of interaction... which culminate in the collision of the gravitating mass with its rimstop.

As such my guess is that they're alluding to the key components of an gravity-assisted momentum asymmetry. Whether or not these specific arrangements do anything interesting with regards to momentum distributions might not be so important as the general principle, of gravitational and inertial interactions interfering with one another, and of subsequent collisions consolidating any resulting momentum asymmetry...


I do intend to run some appropriate tests on these systems, when i get around to it.. i've had this opinion about 24 / 25 for some years, but when previously testing these mechs i only had vague ideas about how and what to actually test for... it's only recently i've hit on the notion of using "9.81" for everything, in place of just "1", which is really what makes these slightly-more complex interactions tangible and navigable, rather than just arbitrary measurements disembodied from any coherent strategy..

Part of the turn-off is in dealing with GPE interactions in the angular plane like this, wherein instantaneous force is a variable function of angle... but also, of net system RPM, as the effective drop height decreases with rising RPM. This is why i've been using spooling weights lately - for their consistent torque / angle. But for the same reasons (angular stuff just generally seems more intimidating than linear), i've only recently started using radians over degrees, and its effect has been transformative on my comprehension, even if i'm still getting the hang of it.. since it puts angular quantities on an even footing, both quantitatively and qualitatively, with their linear counterparts.

The work i'm currently doing is basically precisely the same kind of interaction as depicted in MT 24 / 25, the only difference being that my radially-moving masses are currently equal and opposite, so counterbalancing against gravity, whereas MT shows these masses alternating between inner / outer positions as opposing pairs... and, as noted, i'm still using linear over angular GPE loads. But like i say, this is to keep the different interactions clearly delineated - the testing regime and results should be fully transferable over to angular GPE loads and reciprocating (ie. unbalanced) radial inertial loads..

[Fletcher]

Re. Mt 24 / 25 - salient details to me are the fact that the mechanism couples a gravitational interaction, in the angular plane, with an inertial interaction in the radial plane - IOW an inter-reaction between two different types of interaction... which culminate in the collision of the gravitating mass with its rimstop.

As such my guess is that they're alluding to the key components of an gravity-assisted momentum asymmetry. Whether or not these specific arrangements do anything interesting with regards to momentum distributions might not be so important as the general principle, of gravitational and inertial interactions interfering with one another, and of subsequent collisions consolidating any resulting momentum asymmetry...

That's not quite the general principle I'm investigating. But I am using Work done (TKE) by a falling mass to accelerate another mass upwards so in that sense it is similar to the right hand side top quadrant of MT25 if the juncture of the poles has a mass.

I've been down this catapult like track in the past with no success. And I've simmed MT25 till the cows come home as well. This time I have a different mechanical arrangement than I have tried before. It may amount to nothing ateotd but atm has me intrigued enough to keep at it for now. Could be just another fools errand.

I figure if I can get a positive result in height gain from a stand alone Prime Mover mech then we here could take the principle behind it and design it for a reciprocating device or a revolving wheel I should think. By concentrating on just the functions of the Prime Mover I don't have to get tangled up in all the wheel dynamics - simply get more height gain than energy input cost from a mechanical application - sounds simple if you say it fast ;7)

[daxwc]

Well Fletcher MT 113 definitely wasn’t a MT mistake. He purposely rotated the drawing upside down. What is D on MT 111 it almost looks like in the middle the same as MT 13. Is the whole page now upside down?

[Fletcher]

Well Fletcher MT 113 definitely wasn’t a MT mistake.

He purposely rotated the drawing upside down. What is D on MT 111, it almost looks like in the middle the same as MT 13.

Is the whole page now upside down?

I never felt MT113 was a mistake. For starters the number boxes go top -> bottom -> top -> bottom on that page of 4.

And now that you mention it the thing in MT111 does look like the artificial horizon (stator) in MT13 with the D above it. I just dismissed that strange addition as representing clock hands i.e. a clock driven by B's PM principle. But of course if as in MT13 someone were to lift the lw up at D like lightening then so could this 'clock' PM device run itself with his principle I guess.

Is the whole page upside down ? I don't think so because the feet on the other 3 pieces are at the bottom where they should be. For instance MT111 has a round end which couldn't be the bottom.

However there must be purpose behind having MT113 upside down or rotated 180 degrees ? And I think that is to highlight the problem of lifting weights (or lws) to gain GPE. The nod to MT13 (113 -100 = 13) you found also suggests that is the ultimate aim and principle behind B's PM principle.

Remember the old nugget of "Weights gained force from their own swinging (or movement)". Was that in AP and do you have the exact quote dax ? The wiki page clues doesn't have a page or book reference.

And I want to highlight these old nuggets as well.

.. one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound - what if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application ? Then people would say: 'Now I understand!' – AP pg 342

I don't want to go into the details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused to rise. You can't comprehend these matters, or see how true craftsmanship can rise above innate lowly tendencies (as does a weight above the point of application of a lever)" – AP pg 357

While statements by B should not be taken in isolation and the context is important there are other statements by him that point in the direction we are discussing, IMO. FWIW I don't believe B is strictly talking about breaking the law of levers per se, because he uses the word 'suddenly' to inspire a different thought of acceleration perhaps.

[Fletcher]

I know these quotes have been discussed ad nauseum over the years. I include them in this thread anyway.

"a great craftsman would be that man who can lightly (easily) cause (throw) a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain" – AP pg 295

"I discovered how a man can climb higher on Jacob's ladder, and learn to shun all superstition" – AP pg 259

“Listen – my weights are not like those in turnspits and clocks. They don’t need to be raised up (external work done on weights) – it’s a different arrangement altogether from what you see in mill-wheels, turnspits and clocks� - AP pg 334

The blue and underlining is from my own notes.