What MT 138 Really IS!

[TheVisitorV]

@TheVisitorV: Good morning Denver. I watched this video of yours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5oSo5xs-eI

This is the one with the crossbar where when it falls, it compresses a spring. Okay now hold that thought...

Now are you familiar with the archimedes trammel? I wondered if something like this would work, where the handle is a pendulum/ground to help push the bars into a perpetual state of imbalance. Obviously the use of a 3rd dimension would be critical here so that the parts don't crash on each other.

I believe this presents way more problems than it solves and obviously the diagram as I've depicted it will not work, but it was something that came into my head regarding crossbars with weights and using a system ground/pendulum to try to affect movement.

Perhaps the impulse action could come from running this in a wheel in a hamster cage or your spring-loaded ends or both. If you were to put the weighted pendulum out in the front (the horse) and oscillate the entire archimedes trammel as if it were a pendulum itself (and weight the bottom of the block with a pendulum), than as the horse smacked down on a stop, perhaps it could keep shoving the weights forward to create an imbalance?

Just throwing out ideas once again in hopes that it will help us all somehow.

silent

interesting, don't think it will do much but i'll have a go at it

thx!

[eccentrically1]

Bessler suggests that there is a real mechanical paradox to be solved to find true PM (which he eventually managed after much trial and error). In an ideal and linear world the mechanical paradox conditions should first be theorized and identified, before being mechanically solved, much like a career theoretical physicist would do before proving by experimentation. But Bessler was just like us, he put the cart before the horse, repeatably, until he had a dream. Then for the first time he saw the paradoxical conditions of the mechanics of true PM and the actual mechanical principle to solve that paradox. And the solution was incredibly simple. So embarrassingly simple that he had to say it was 'deeply hidden', tho I doubt that very much. And those two little words "deeply hidden" have kept generations wonderfully deflected and occupied trying to overturn solid Newtonian Physics and mechanics with a special mechanism that doesn't obey those Laws.

For Bessler's wheels to 'work' they had to obey the Laws of Nature. I have been saying for quite some time that they must also obey Newtonian Laws of Motion and Classical Physics and Mechanics. And those same man made Laws tell us a mechanical paradox allowing for a true gravity powered PM wheel can not exist.

But it does likely exist IMO - and when found will be entirely self evident and discernible, and the paradox will not be in the mechanics of some special uniquely behaving mechanism but will be that an engine machine of ordinary mechanics and principles can extract usable energy from a gravity field without losing or being given potential.

(from website with 3 solutions thread)
silent wrote:
.. snip ..

The problem remains that gravity likes to hold on to stuff so what kind of mechanical paradox can we discover that would work?

After 300 years, I believe the problem is far harder than anyone ever imagined and the solution so simple as once revealed, to put us all in our place that we aren't as smart as we thought we were.



Hi silent ..

I'm going to turn your comments on their head. Nothing personal. Just to offer a counterpoint view to stretch the neurons over xmass NY.

There is no mechanical paradox ! All the wheels mechanics are known and do not violate the Laws of Physics and especially do not violate Archimedes Law of Levers. However, energy can be restored thru the wheels continuous motion and also output external work, essentially from the gravity field (which might be considered a type of paradox).

It can't be both!

[Fletcher]

I realise that a cobbling together of spare parts and calling it a sort of physical paradox is hard to fathom.

The paradox only exists in that once these parts come together in the form of a simple machine, or engine if you prefer, which has continuous imbalance in a gravity field; this machine can produce thru self-rotation usable RKE to do work. And neither the machine nor the gravity field which powers the machine requires at the macro-level any energy replenishment, such as would be the case for a water wheel, or a hanging-weight on a chain driven clock etc. This would be a physical paradox in the widest sense to modern physics because a 'g' field is considered (and treated in physics) as an acceleration or gradient of potential. And thus should need external work done on a mass to replenish its original potential i.e. the conservative force theory e.g. solar energy to re-seed high lakes for the water wheel and hydro power after that potential is converted to kinetic.

But first it must be accepted that all mechanical physical devices are just simple machines of one form or another. And as such can not and do not EVER break Archimedes Law of Levers (aka CoE and CoMomentum). If they ever gave back more height or speed than the 'field' gave them without external input of energy from another source then that would be a both a mechanical and metaphysical paradox. And of course no machine has ever broken the Law of Levers and the Law is as sound today as it ever was.

So for Bessler's wheels to work as described it was not a physical paradox in the sense of cobbling parts together that broke the Law of Levers. It is a paradox in the sense that these same 'inert' and un-special parts could come together and produce usable energy from a 'g' field without replenishment of that extracted energy from an external and different source. Now that's a paradox of the Work:Energy Theorem, not any lever and weight combo.

[ovyyus]

And thus should need external work done on a mass to replenish its original potential i.e. the conservative force theory...

Is it theory or fact that gravity is a conservative force?

[Fletcher]

The current paradigm is that it is a fact that gravity is a conservative force.

The fact will be relegated to a work-in-progress theory that gravity is a conservative force if a machine interacting with a gravity field can be shown to do continuous useful work without requiring a replenishable supply of external energy to maintain its potential and still do work.

Then a new working theory for gravity and its previously thought conservatism will be required. One that recognises that the relationship between 'g' force, GPE, KE, force and displacement aka the Work:Energy Theorem (or Work Energy Equivalence Principle [WEEP]) is not absolute and sacrosanct - IOW's that WEEP symmetry is fallible in certain mechanical circumstances and arrangements.

IMO.

[eccentrically1]

. So for Bessler's wheels to work as described it was not a physical paradox in the sense of cobbling parts together that broke the Law of Levers. It is a paradox in the sense that these same 'inert' and un-special parts could come together and produce usable energy from a 'g' field without replenishment of that extracted energy from an external and different source. Now that's a paradox of the Work:Energy Theorem, not any lever and weight combo.

We still haven’t determined how they worked as described. We don’t know they produced usable energy from gravity without replenishment from a different external source. I don’t think they did that. Just as sure as you are they didn’t (and couldn’t) break the law of levers, I’m just as sure they weren’t a paradox of either sort: physical law-of-lever or CoE.

[ovyyus]

The fact will be relegated to a work-in-progress theory that gravity is a conservative force if a machine interacting with a gravity field can be shown to do continuous useful work without requiring a replenishable supply of external energy to maintain its potential and still do work.

True in the context of the 'big if' classical PM penultimate solution. But I wonder if classical PM would define Bessler's wheel? Was Bessler's 'true pm' the same as our 'classical pm', or did he mean something else? I think he probably meant something else. Perhaps 'classical PM' is what Bessler called 'false PM'?

[Fletcher]

But I wonder if classical PM describes Bessler's wheel?

I for one describe a 'classical PM attempt' as what is seen in much of the first 55 of MT; and the classical part is literally only half the story, IMO. Therefore on their own they don't come close to describing Bessler's wheel, also IMO. I contend they are simply Primers and nothing more.

Was Bessler's 'true pm' the same as our 'classical pm', or did he mean something else? I think he meant something else.

I also think he meant something else. A 'true PM' had to have the other half of the mechanical equation added to make a 'true PM' as distinct from the unworkable 'false PM' where everybody falters and stalls.

Perhaps 'classical PM' is 'false PM'?

Classical PM attempts have always proven to be 'false PM' because they don't and can't work. So the question is how do you turn a false PM into a true PM ?

[ovyyus]

So the question is how do you turn a false PM into a true PM ?

It seems 'false pm' requires a 'horse' in order to become 'true pm'. James Cox 'true pm' was a 'horse' powering his clock 'cart'. I expect Bessler's 'true pm' will be a 'horse' powering his wheel 'cart'. We clearly need a 'horse'. We already have the 'cart'.

[silent]

.

[Fletcher]

So the question is how do you turn a false PM into a true PM ?

It seems 'false pm' requires a 'horse' in order to become 'true pm'. James Cox 'true pm' was a 'horse' powering his clock 'cart'.

I expect Bessler's 'true pm' will be a 'horse' powering his wheel 'cart'. We clearly need a 'horse'. We already have the 'cart'.

I went and read about James Cox self-winding clock that used mercury and barometric pressure. If the clock was that sensitive that it used changes in barometric pressure, then perhaps would a bellows create an artificial pressure change sufficient enough to be the horse?

I notice the little mechanisms at the top and bottom seem similar to the hammer toys of MT138. Despite all of this, I still don't see how a self-winding clock-style mechanism could power anything. Was Bessler using some kind of a rube-goldberg device that started with one microscopically small and hidden energy source to gradually build up to one larger OU producer?

I think that some of us at least recognise that there must be a duality of separate 'horse and cart' structures to arrive at the fabled true PM wheel arrangement. And experience and/or logic, plus analysis of physics and math tells us that the classical gravity wheel PM attempt is both a false PM 'hope' and the 'cart' in this metaphor for true PM.

And so we look for 'power sources' to be the horse. And if inventive enough and diligent enough in researching the past we can come up with some seemingly plausible possibilities. Many like me eventually discount ambient diurnal pressure and temperature changes captured and harnessed to wind a spring as just not having sufficient power density to replicate Bessler's wheels performances. The green horse is a bust.

So we look for other alternatives available in his time or earlier. Bill came up with an ingenious heat engine design based on a Stirling Engine principle which if used by Bessler was well before they were actually invented in Scotland. It purportedly has the energy density required, but did need periodic fuel replenishment. A good strong brown horse to literally pull the cart around.

And so the debate shifts from the requirement for a horse in this metaphor to would some horse solutions be true PM and others not ? Well there is evidence that Drebbel's and later Cox's self-sustaining machines were considered true PM at the time. Tho Bessler nor Wagner IIRC makes any mention of their position on it, tho you think it would have come up if Wagner suspected it. And the problem of harnessing enough energy density inside a volume of wheel is still unresolved and a barrier. No apparent way forward to progress this position.

I admit I can't bring myself to accept that a hidden calorific fuel supply needing replenishment would constitute true PM in any age or time, ingeniously disguised and used as it might be. In my mind that would be a step to far for Bessler's and Karl's credibility and integrity stock, with repercussions.

So I am left having to decide what colour is this horse of horses ? I know that it can pull many carts, or can it ?

So I decide to take another route, approach the problem from a different angle or perspective. Suspend all preconceptions about conservative gravity fields and try to not take all things at face value but instead apply logic where I can. This means that I do not just accept that the cart is just the cart dragging behind the horse. The horse can move along and carry a load on its back just fine without the cart. The metaphor can only get us so far. So maybe the cart has another equally important purpose to true PM. What could that be ? Why are carts interchanageable and how does that relate to the purpose of the cart ?

And when all said and done it distills to this. That in order for a gravity only machine/engine to work as described by Bessler and Karl etc then the wheel's (made up of horse and cart) CoM must be consistently OOB, even as Bessler described it to be. Since we know that the classic cart-wheel (excuse the pun) can't ever fulfill that requirement then we must look elsewhere and at the role of the big black horse also firmly in the frame !

[ovyyus]

I admit I can't bring myself to accept that a hidden calorific fuel supply needing replenishment would constitute true PM in any age or time, ingeniously disguised and used as it might be.

The quest for the everlasting lamp was once a thing. Stories of ancient tombs being opened to find lamps still burning inside sparked research into 'perpetual lamps'. People searched for formulas for their construction. A perpetual lamp, if one could be found, would make a fine horse. Bessler's interests extended to chemistry (alchemy), he wasn't just a simple mechanic.

[Fletcher]

All true Bill. A perpetual lamp would make a fine horse. The key word there is perpetual, not a longer lasting lamp. Or one that ignited from a trip mechanism in a tomb for instance. Bessler was an alchemist, and probably more than a simple mechanic, as part of his repertoire of interests and skills so it must be left in as a possible candidate for his horse to keep with that metaphor.

Here I can only explain my own reasoning which no doubt has different weightings from yours. Your solution is eminently practical at one level, but it also has its problems and so I don't weight it as highly in the spectrum of plausibilities as you. If I did I could have happily packed in the search for Bessler's true PM years ago, and would have. The truth is, however infinitesimally small the chances are that his true PM was a gravity only solution, its search has much more of an emotional connect to me, mainly because of a potential upside to todays foundations of knowledge if found to be true. So call me dumb but that would be exciting and worth the effort to me.

At least you and I agree that there must be both a separate horse and cart. Plenty don't. We both no doubt found ourselves at cross-roads at some point. Decision time. Which fork to take, and for what reasons ? You took yours and I continue to take mine. Nothing favoured in hindsight until the case is beyond doubt with a working POP that can duplicate all Besslers' wheels performances, or is irrefutably logical and undeniable when laid out in full.

For those that don't like the horse and cart metaphor (altho Bessler used it in MT20) cos it only goes so far, I could put it another way. The classical unbalanced PM wheel attempt is like playing the true PM game with only the first half a deck of cards. You need the full shuffled deck to play.

[WaltzCee]

The horse is in the cart and it's not
dealing with a full deck.

[ovyyus]

The key word there is perpetual, not a longer lasting lamp.

We know that nothing in nature is truly perpetual, so I think the difference between 'perpetual' and 'long lasting' might not be so black and white. We also know that motivated people often push these sorts of boundaries to suit their agenda.

The truth is, however infinitesimally small the chances are that his true PM was a gravity only solution, its search has much more of an emotional connect to me, mainly because of a potential upside to todays foundations of knowledge if found to be true. So call me dumb but that would be exciting and worth the effort to me.

I agree. However, I try not to link the search for some new principle in fundamental physics with the search for Bessler's secret. I suspect there is no link. That suspicion doesn't diminish my personal interest in uncovering Bessler's secret.