..What i look for in MT is obviously anything that could relate to means for generating and accumulating reactionless momentum.silent wrote:I appreciate your commentary. Very well written and eloquent at that.
I can't help but think if we get rid of the diagrams from the MT that just obviously don't apply and focus on key points that Bessler said, we might have a better understanding of what was going on.
The main evidence i'm trying to reconcile is the witness descriptions of the broad characteristics - so, the wheels' performance envelopes, how they started up and reacted to applied loads - on the one hand, with the basic laws of physics on the other. The only phenomenon that cross-references consistently between both sets of conditions is a 'gravity-assisted effective N3 break', so that's the context in which i'm looking to interpret MT's 'lessons'; if he wanted to emblazon a claim to future generations, that's the mechanical principle his 'magic' must reduce to.
A point raised by JC some time ago is that Bessler may have been referring to published images, already in print and circulation, when he suggests some "discerning mind" in the future might cross-correlate a gain mechanism between them; in which case the so-called 'Kassel wheels' and other images from DT & AP are potentially as informative as MT if not moreso, since it was never actually published..
In this case, the core elements of a gain interaction reduce to a wheel, a pendulum and a GPE load (usually spooling off the axle)... that's basically the 'running theme' of the Kassel prints..
To put it another way, the Kassel prints likely somehow portray a technique for generating reactionless momentum, and accumulating it in a closed system, that MT may only more vaguely allude to..
Precisely, the apparent fact that it's possible in 2D is yet another reason the problem seems so inherently tractable - was trying to solve a problem in 3D just last week and honestly, the complexity multiplies..Your implementation of the rotating hammer toys I've seen before, but I don't think Bessler liked that kind of leverage. In fact, MT134 was a departure from all of his other leverage trickery. Leading up to that, he was using levers anchored at the wheel in 2D and 3D and we know that the 3D ones in the end weren't used because of his one wheel being only 4.5 inches wide. If Bessler had really wanted to confuse the issue, he should have projected his oil cloth covering out like a tent top out to the ends of his axle so that people would have speculated on all that machinery that was going on underneath it. The fact that it was accomplished in such a narrow profile, pretty much convinces me that everything basically happened in 2 dimensions which removes a million and one different combinations people could have come up with. It's bad enough as it is.
This is doable, in a human lifetime. Possibly working part-time or within a retirement term. Finite permutations. So long as it's guided by the implicit physics of mechanical OU.. and so, focused upon disrupting the causation between the equality of input work vs output KE.
Given the three laws of motion, two dimensions, p=mV and KE=½mV², and gravity, it is possible break that symmetry; it basically happens automatically when we break N3 / momentum symmetry. Thus a 'gravity-assisted effective N3 break / unidirectional momentum rise' is the singular interaction Bessler would've wanted to communicate / lay claim to.
Remember, the biggest secret is simply knowing it's possible... given that we, today, also have the benefit of knowing deductively precisely what conditions must be met in order to manifest mechanical OU... we don't even need Bessler anymore!. So any consistency between what we're doing and any given Bessler clue is for the birds, really - we understand why statorless operation's essential, why "everything must go around together" - it's a gravity-assisted N3 violation, gaining momentum from gravity or sinking counter-momentum to it. Resolve MT / the Toys page with the Kassel images, and everything distills down to an interaction involving angular inertias and GPE interactions..
..and it's an interaction that evolves over successive cycles, as momentum gains accumulate, and the discrepancy between input work and output KE develops in time.. there's no 'hole-in-1' jackpots on offer, nor sleight-of-hand moments - no 'magic' - besides a diverging inertial frame.
But i'm ranting..
This was pretty much my first attempt to apply them, too..Now the application I'm thinking of the hammer toys is more literal. If you notice my shitty drawing I've included, that represents the hammer toy. The purple dots are pivots. The big blue dot with a block dot inside is the hub and the green line is a spoke or cross bar of the wheel. I know it's not centered, but it's my shitty drawing. Anyway the mechanism right now is in an impossible position because it would normally be tipped back or forwards.
Now imagine rotating it clockwise. It would flop to the right and it would hold this position until the weight that is thrust forward on the right, reached 6:00. It would then hang there while the weight that fell on the hub prior would hang down and start coming off of the hub. At this point it is still higher than the first weight. As the wheel spins around, the framework that holds the weights will keep moving and both weights will now be upside down hanging evenly, then as things keep moving, the weight that was once off of the axle, starts to rise and creep in closer to the hub. When it finally touches the hub, then the weight that prior was touching the hub is now hanging off of the hub fully. As you bring that around finally it will reach a point where it can't stay in this retarded position and it will flop ahead. So you would get this lop-a-long effect.
So in one respect, it's basically just a passive GPE interaction, or OB scheme, converting lift in the predominantly-radial plane to OB torque about the axis. In this role its particular characteristics seem undistinguishing..So you get this effect where the mechanism leaps ahead and technically anything affixed to it would be thrust forwards as well. As it spins, the mechanism unloads from the wheel when it's inverted, but then it gets to a point right at the end where it needs to be carried up and over. I'd like to think that momentum from the impact and initial fall would be enough to carry it through, but perhaps I'm mistaken.
However it's also, as you note, an angular inertial interaction; so a key question to be checking would be "is it symmetrical?" - is the increase in momentum as the weight jumps forward reciprocated by an equal counter-momentum applied back to the axis, and either way, do these momenta cancel over the complete interaction.. and more to the point, could they be manipulated not to?
Perhaps, but what form of OU would only arise at a multiple of five mechanisms?Since Bessler talked about the devil might enslave you, perhaps his is referring to the pentagram - the 5 point star - which has long been the devil's signature mark. Perhaps 5 mechanisms are the sweet spot and with the right amount of craftsmanship, you would be able to stack several mechanisms. Perhaps Bessler talking about the hoop and stick toy of children was thinking about this where a tap on the wheel makes it spin for awhile before another tap is needed.
This was one of JC's hypotheses at one time, my contention being that either each mechanism performs an independent 'cycle' (consistent with "..but one crossbar"), individually cooperating to combine their effort, in which case there's no 'sweet' number of mechs and it's arbitrary, or else, there's some kind of magic that only arises after five cycles have elapsed, so "one crossbar" would either need to complete five turns - which would mean it was being powered through a loss phase where efficiency was < 100% - or else primed with startup-KE equal to its 'unity threshold'; the speed at which its KE is equal to the input PE, which itself could be arbitrarily low..
As i say, if the magic arises at 5 mechs / cycles then that implies an N3 break between inertias in a 3:1 ratio, causing a 75% energy loss per cycle, a 25% efficiency accumulator per cycle and a unity threshold of four cycles, with OU at 125% arising at the fifth cycle.
Two vertical bars link left-to-right eyelets, one vertical bar runs back right-to-left, so some kind of directional bias or asymmetry is implied; also, by the asymmetric fork angle atop 'A'; surely the only relevant physical quantity this could relate to is acquisition of unidirectional angular momentum..Also, if you look at my diagram and top horizontal cross bar, imagine carrying that cross bar out and putting a weight on either end. As the mechanism thrusts or lops ahead, it would also shove the weights on the rod off center, then they would eventually hang neutral underneath the axle, then have to do that last minute climb up and over.
I'm not sure of the timing cycle, but it seems to me there is a period of time where there is positive weight pushing down, then a somewhat neutral or low loading demand on the wheel, with one last final catch at the end needed to come up and over. If this wasn't the prime location for the mechanism, then dropping it further so the top horizontal cross bar goes through the hub might help.
It all depends if this mechanism is part of the driving force of the wheel or if it was being used as a trigger for something located elsewhere on the wheel. As this is depicted, we would have 10 weights (2 per set) across 5 mechanisms and in fact A & B on the toys page seems to indicate 5 sets of 2 of something.
..somehow involving reciprocating GPE interactions.
Remember, the one-way wheels remained under static OB torque when stationary, so this is obviously one way of generating statorless angular momentum. Also, the bidirectional wheels began accelerating "as an internal weight was heard to begin falling" - and torquing a wheel against a falling weight also skews the resulting momentum distributions, in defiance of N3.
Regarding timing, again, note the apparent offset of the lower toy's alignment to the eyelets on 'A' & 'B', in relation to that of the upper toy, suggesting they're 90° out of sequence - they transition in turn, thus the state of one presumably may affect the results of the other..
Eyes on the prize in all this, tho - how's any of it relate to accumulating cheap momentum? That should always be the key question in everything..
I think we're pretty much unanimous, they're just linear levers, an exemplification of the conservative nature of F*d, AKA "work", "energy", "CoE" etc. "Input work" is my guess, or maybe a metaphor for "inertia" (what the operator feels at the handles) or perhaps "momentum" (the conserved nature of inertia times velocity)..I'm still not sure how the lazy tongs factors into all of this because for anything useful to come out of it, you need a LOT of weight to make it move. It doesn't move that fast and in order to make it move fast takes way more energy than what the wheel produces and we don't have that kind of extra energy to play with.
.. and elsewhere, "..all of the internal parts, and the perpetual motion structures, retain the power of free movement..", again implying their independence from some other mechanism/s..One final note is if you go to MT15 and read what Bessler says - he says here you can see the overbalance, but nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced (paraphrased by me.)
Again, the only meaningful context in which to try interpret anything is our implicit goal of the only possible solution, of gaming the 'V²' multiplier in KE=½mV², by somehow circumventing the usual constraints of Newton's 3rd and thus 1st laws.
"Perpetual motion structures", like "crossbars" and "cunning cats" etc., are either something to do directly with that.. or else, so much chaff.
I suspect he brute-forced it conceptually, by recognising the value of manipulating the balance of momentum to counter-momentum in a closed, statorless system, so causing a motion that literally perpetuates itself.I'm beginning to wonder if Bessler didn't just brute force all of this and use the drummer toy mechanism as I've described. Eventually you get enough weight slopped out to one side, something's gotta give and start rotating. And if you get enough of it rotating, intertia would hopefully carry it through.
The good part about this drummer toy mechanism is that I think it would be pretty much immune to CF or at least to a point because it works with side-to-side motion where it thrusts ahead, unloads, lags behind, and then bam - it climbs up, up, up and then over - then boom - thrusts ahead again.
I need to actually build the drummer toy mechanism and just spin it slowly to watch how it behaves. I'm pretty sure I'm envisioning it correctly though.
silent
If you note in Bessler's nomenclature, any and all forces that counteract a desired motion are referred to as "friction"; including 'weight', and counter-momentum.. implying a simple dichotomy between "stuff what make wheel go" versus "stuff what makes it stop".. hence he basically 'eliminated friction' so thoroughly he ended up inverting that portion that was actually counter-momentum, thus causing the divergent inertial frame in which input PE was less than output KE.
We'll only know decisively how thorough a handle he had on the exploit once we've fully understood whatever he's encrypted, however we've no need to rely on that if we simply work the problem from the physics end instead - there's only gonna be one consistent explanation, and we're already looking at it.
Get a physics sim before splashing out on Meccano or whatever.. you'll make ten times the progress over time..
