Part Three is the Charm

[mryy]

"The causative principle of the movement is its ponderous impetus. It runs according to 'preponderance' and turns everything else alone with it. On one side it is heavy and full, on the other side empty and light. It must revolve through my principle of 'excess weight', at first slow, then gradually increasing its temp to the accompaniment of a likewise increasing noise caused by the movement of its internal weights, resulting in a living machine. These weights are themselves the perpetual motion device, the 'essential constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force so long as they keep away from the center of gravity." (Collins translation)

mryy .. I don't believe I've read that exact translation before. I spent some time searching thru John Collins digital AP and DT but can't find it.

Could you provide your full reference, thanks.

viewtopic.php?p=150394

It's in the opening post. I assumed that was the Collins translation if I am not wrong ...

[WaltzCee]

On one side it is heavy and full, on the other side empty and light. It must revolve through my principle of 'excess weight', at first slow, then gradually increasing its temp to the accompaniment of a likewise increasing noise caused by the movement of its internal weights, resulting in a living machine.

(בָּרָא)
requires intelligent design
a working wheel has to be sentient
needs to know the difference between up & down

not being snarky at all.

[johannesbender]

The internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way that weights (page 20) applied in accordance with the laws of Perpetual Motion, work, once a small impressed force has caused the commencement of movement, to perpetuate the said movement and cause the rotation to continue indefinitely - that is, as long as the device retains its structural integrity - without the necessity of external assistance for its continuation - such as the mechanisms which are to be found in other 'automatics' e.g. clockwork, springs or weights that require rewinding. For this concept, my 'principle of excess weight', is NOT just an external appendage, an 'added-on device' which is there in order to cause, through application of its weight, the continuation of the motion (the revolution) so long as the cords or chains, from which it depends, permit.

NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the 'essential constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity. To this end they are enclosed (page 21) in a structure or framework, and co- ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or 'point of rest, but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing. This velocity is sufficient for the moving and raising of loads applied to the axis of rotation.

It is, however, an incontestable truth that my much-mentioned Wheel deserves not only the name of the long-sought Perpetual Motion, but also, just as much, the name (Perpetual) Mover; since it is an example of one of the best-known of all mechanical appliances, namely a peritrochium.
I state this since I once -

1 - attached a cord or rope to the wheel's axle, and led it over two pulleys out of the window. With the aid of this arrangement I was able to raise a chest full of stones, weighing approximately a hundredweight, as high as the height of the building itself would permit.

2. Attached some planks of hard solid wood, average cross- section (shaped like the outline of the prismatic solids) five inches, and length 7 feet, to the device; these were then moved and raised by arms attached to the axle by means of a type of cradle similar to those found in fullers' -or paper-mills. 3. Used the motive power in the spinning peritrochium to drive an Archimedes Screw standing in a large reservoir of water, thereby raising the water and creating a veritable cascade.

And so in this manner I was able to demonstrate, using just three special tests out of the infinite number possible, that my crafted Wheel, consisting as it does entirely of ponderous matter (matter which, as long as it or the Universe exists, will so remain) yet moves and rotates of its own accord, and, like a living creature, can work and perform services of great value.

I am not sure the exact reference where the words come from , but over here Bessler expressly writes the association with a "living creature" is because his wheel can perform external work and not just turn itself.

Wagner describes how he thinks my machine is constructed; he babbles about "excess weights" being snatched along, by means of "internal motive power", in a frequently-repeated cycle of up and down movements. According to him, Nature dictates that things gravitate downwards. But the weights which rest below must, in a flash, be raised upwards, and it is this that Wagner cannot force himself to accept. But, crazy Wagner, just note that that is indeed the case with my device. But if anyone should presume to say that my Wheel is definitely such-and-such without having seen it, he is a fool and a fantasizer of the first order. He deserves to have a donkey's tail affixed to his lying rump.

I like this quote haha.

[Tarsier79]

Let’s analyze the system.

Suppose at 6:00 you use 100 joules to shoot the mass to 2:00.

The mass departing 6:00 with 100 joules of kinetic energy.

The mass arrived at 2:00 with 99 joules of KE and 1 joules of GPE (because it is higher now).

The mass 99 joules of KE is transfer to and flip the lever.

The lever now have 99 joules of GPE.

The lever 99 joules of GPE + 1 joules of the ball GPE = 100 joules of GPE.

When the lever and ball fall from 2:00 to 6:00, we can extract 100 joules of energy.

No gain.

However, when the ball departs 6:00, it recoil and push the wheel with 100 joules worth You might have to rethink that.

When it arrived at 2:00 and flip the lever, it recoil and push the wheel with 99 joules worth. It either pushes the wheel or it pushes the lever, or divides its energy between them. The energy doesn't add

The wheel gained speed and energy although no gain in GPE. No gain here.

[Tarsier79]

Responding to this and your previous post together, your energy analysis makes all the more sense to me if we are discussing designs where the weights are continuously in contact with some part of the wheel. My theory is that the flying weights hitting the 2:00 lever *reset* the system by being free for a very brief moment -- when they are in midair. Once they land they inject independent energy to the system. I believe this is what separates my concept from MT drawings and others. Ofc it's a theory and still needs to be tested.

There is no energy injected into the system. The "untethering" doesn't do anything special. The balls energy comes from the spring, the springs energy comes from the large weight (Meaning it takes energy specifically from them) and supposedly the impact of the ball. It is just like the cinema tickets.

[Fletcher]

"The causative principle of the movement is its ponderous impetus. It runs according to 'preponderance' and turns everything else alone with it. On one side it is heavy and full, on the other side empty and light. It must revolve through my principle of 'excess weight', at first slow, then gradually increasing its temp to the accompaniment of a likewise increasing noise caused by the movement of its internal weights, resulting in a living machine. These weights are themselves the perpetual motion device, the 'essential constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force so long as they keep away from the center of gravity." (Collins translation)

mryy .. I don't believe I've read that exact translation before. I spent some time searching thru John Collins digital AP and DT but can't find it.

Could you provide your full reference, thanks.

viewtopic.php?p=150394

It's in the opening post. I assumed that was the Collins translation if I am not wrong ...

Thanx mryy .. here is Rocky's opening comments about his "wallboard of clues". Rocky was in law enforcement IINM.

Detectives use a wall board to sort clues to solve a mystery. I took all of Bessler's clues and grouped them together in paragraphs rearranging the sentences to make more sense.

So I think that was Rocky's arrangement - and jb is correct - B. does compare the work it can do to those of a living (creature) beast of burden.

Having said that his witnesses do compare it to the search for vis viva (Leinnz = life force). And a self moving wheel able to do Work would instill thoughts of 'life' in an ordinarily inanimate object I guess.

Especially if you didn't know the Input energy source transmuted into mechanical energy Output.

[eccentrically1]

In summary, the tides and tidal bulge on the earth are caused by both the gravitational force of the moon on the earth and the earth's rotation. The moon's gravity causes the oceans to be "pulled" towards the moon, creating a tidal bulge on the side of the earth facing the moon, and the earth's rotation causes the tidal bulge to "ebb and flow" as it moves in and out of different coastal areas, resulting in the tides or "ebb and flow" of the oceans.


Ok thanks for the clarification. Can you think of a way to exchange momentum with the earth's rotation while on the surface of the earth? In other words - as opposed to gaining momentum as a satellite of earth like the moon - gaining momentum from the earth while rotating with it.


There are a few ways that it is possible to exchange momentum with the earth's rotation while on the surface of the earth:

Throwing an object: If you throw an object in a particular direction, you can transfer momentum to the earth in the opposite direction. For example, if you throw a ball to the west, you will transfer momentum to the earth in the east. This will cause the earth to rotate slightly faster in the opposite direction.
Jumping: When you jump, you transfer momentum to the earth in the opposite direction to your jump. For example, if you jump upwards, you will transfer momentum to the earth in the downwards direction. This will cause the earth to rotate slightly faster in the opposite direction.
Spinning: When you spin around, you transfer momentum to the earth in the opposite direction to your spin. For example, if you spin clockwise, you will transfer momentum to the earth in the counterclockwise direction. This will cause the earth to rotate slightly faster in the opposite direction.
It is important to note that the amount of momentum transferred to the earth in these examples is very small, and would not have a significant effect on the earth's rotation.

In summary, there are a few ways that it is possible to exchange momentum with the earth's rotation while on the surface of the earth, such as throwing an object, jumping, or spinning. However, the amount of momentum transferred in these examples is very small, and would not have a significant effect on the earth's rotation.

Probably works the same while on a roundabout. But B's wheel didn't throw objects, jump, or spin horizontally. Unless I'm wrong he found a different tree.

🌴

https://powerlisting.fandom.com/wiki/Pl ... _Symbiosis

[Fletcher]

Question to ChatGPT .. "Can you think of a way to exchange momentum with the earth's rotation while on the surface of the earth?

In other words - as opposed to gaining momentum as a satellite of earth like the moon - gaining momentum from the earth while rotating with it."

ChatGPT Answer (paraphrased) .. Throwing, jumping, spinning .. gives AM to the earth while on the earths surface.

Some more I can think of - accelerating, and, braking !

...

;7) .. A reverse analogy might be something like this. I place a large vertical flywheel in stands and anchor it to the earths surface. I apply rotational energy to the flywheel to have it spinning at a considerable clip. Attached to the stands is a large set of calipers and disk pads to act as a brake (the external force). I apply the brake and frictions cause the wheel to slow down losing AM. System energy is lost in the form of heat and sound etc. The action of applying the brake creates a torque to the center of the earth, causing the earth to gain in AM by the same amount lost by the wheel as it slows. Energy to apply the brake is equal to the frictional losses etc.

In the 'reverse analogy' above there is a mechanical "Prime Stopper" apparatus. Replace that with a mechanical "Prime Mover" assembly and AM will be transferred from earth to wheel, instead of wheel to earth.

ETA : Prime Stopper and Prime Mover names are moot - both aid the transfer AM between bodies, where one loses and one gains. Only mechanical Prime Stoppers are the most familiar.

[WaltzCee]

In the 'reverse analogy' above there is a mechanical "Prime Stopper" apparatus. Replace that with a mechanical "Prime Mover" assembly and AM will be transferred from earth to wheel, instead of wheel to earth.

any idea how big that flywheel would have to be before any meaningful results could be produced?

Where's our resident math·e·ma·ti·cian?

ETA
that might have been a tad snarky

[Leafy]

However, when the ball departs 6:00, it recoil and push the wheel with 100 joules worth You might have to rethink that.

When it arrived at 2:00 and flip the lever, it recoil and push the wheel with 99 joules worth. It either pushes the wheel or it pushes the lever, or divides its energy between them. The energy doesn't add

The wheel gained speed and energy although no gain in GPE. No gain here.

[/quote]

Tarsier, the kinetic energy distributes into x,y components. The x,y components at 6:00 is exactly the same as the x,y component at 2:00.

The lever attached to the wheel, push on the lever is the same as push on the wheel.

[mryy]

The internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way that weights (page 20) applied in accordance with the laws of Perpetual Motion, work, once a small impressed force has caused the commencement of movement, to perpetuate the said movement and cause the rotation to continue indefinitely - that is, as long as the device retains its structural integrity - without the necessity of external assistance for its continuation - such as the mechanisms which are to be found in other 'automatics' e.g. clockwork, springs or weights that require rewinding. For this concept, my 'principle of excess weight', is NOT just an external appendage, an 'added-on device' which is there in order to cause, through application of its weight, the continuation of the motion (the revolution) so long as the cords or chains, from which it depends, permit.

NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the 'essential constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity. To this end they are enclosed (page 21) in a structure or framework, and co- ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or 'point of rest, but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing. This velocity is sufficient for the moving and raising of loads applied to the axis of rotation.

It is, however, an incontestable truth that my much-mentioned Wheel deserves not only the name of the long-sought Perpetual Motion, but also, just as much, the name (Perpetual) Mover; since it is an example of one of the best-known of all mechanical appliances, namely a peritrochium.
I state this since I once -

1 - attached a cord or rope to the wheel's axle, and led it over two pulleys out of the window. With the aid of this arrangement I was able to raise a chest full of stones, weighing approximately a hundredweight, as high as the height of the building itself would permit.

2. Attached some planks of hard solid wood, average cross- section (shaped like the outline of the prismatic solids) five inches, and length 7 feet, to the device; these were then moved and raised by arms attached to the axle by means of a type of cradle similar to those found in fullers' -or paper-mills. 3. Used the motive power in the spinning peritrochium to drive an Archimedes Screw standing in a large reservoir of water, thereby raising the water and creating a veritable cascade.

And so in this manner I was able to demonstrate, using just three special tests out of the infinite number possible, that my crafted Wheel, consisting as it does entirely of ponderous matter (matter which, as long as it or the Universe exists, will so remain) yet moves and rotates of its own accord, and, like a living creature, can work and perform services of great value.

I am not sure the exact reference where the words come from , but over here Bessler expressly writes the association with a "living creature" is because his wheel can perform external work and not just turn itself.

Wagner describes how he thinks my machine is constructed; he babbles about "excess weights" being snatched along, by means of "internal motive power", in a frequently-repeated cycle of up and down movements. According to him, Nature dictates that things gravitate downwards. But the weights which rest below must, in a flash, be raised upwards, and it is this that Wagner cannot force himself to accept. But, crazy Wagner, just note that that is indeed the case with my device. But if anyone should presume to say that my Wheel is definitely such-and-such without having seen it, he is a fool and a fantasizer of the first order. He deserves to have a donkey's tail affixed to his lying rump.

I like this quote haha.

Translations. The point I wanted to make was that in Nature you see organisms of different origins mutually dependent on one another for survial, for growth. Rhetorically asking, is it possible for this relationship to have an equivalent in mechanical energy systems?

Wagner you silly ... ... lol (Btw Wagner is cool in my book and a big thank you to him that my concept came into being. :) )

[mryy]

Responding to this and your previous post together, your energy analysis makes all the more sense to me if we are discussing designs where the weights are continuously in contact with some part of the wheel. My theory is that the flying weights hitting the 2:00 lever *reset* the system by being free for a very brief moment -- when they are in midair. Once they land they inject independent energy to the system. I believe this is what separates my concept from MT drawings and others. Ofc it's a theory and still needs to be tested.

There is no energy injected into the system. The "untethering" doesn't do anything special. The balls energy comes from the spring, the springs energy comes from the large weight (Meaning it takes energy specifically from them) and supposedly the impact of the ball. It is just like the cinema tickets.

I said *independent* energy. The energy is ofc from the spring and so forth. Because the weight arrives at 2:00 via *flight* my theory is that the system detects energy it considers foreign but we know it isn't. A weight in flight is invisible to the wheel and appears new despite the weight being previously "tethered" to it. I theorized the system receives a reset when the weight lands. You assert "the 'untethering' doesn't do anything special." A build will decide if I am right ...

I feel your energy analysis would also seem on the surface to invalidate the MT introductory paragraph about taking together various nonrunner designs to find PM. Some here think combining under-unity designs can only produce an under-unity outcome. Your energy analysis would seem to support this line of thinking. But B. had legitimate wheels as attested by Karl the Landgrave, and their movements could be seen in those select MT illustrations ...

[Leafy]

Suppose we fire at 6:00 hit the 2:00 lever. The lever received the blow and flip up as shown.

Since it’s a straight line, x-y components are identical.

The y component at 6:00 has no torque.
The x component at 6:00 has a full radius of torque.

When the lever get hit, the x component at 2:00 transfer to the pivot and has about half radius of torque.
The y component at 2:00 only flip the lever. But the lever centrifugal force during flipping is the y component and has almost full radius of torque.

If the speed at 6:00 and 2:00 is identical, all torques cancel out. If they’re not and the aren’t, there is a net torque.

[mryy]

Suppose we fire at 6:00 hit the 2:00 lever. The lever received the blow and flip up as shown.



C5CDF89E-F3F9-499A-9E68-0E5D337548E1.jpeg



Since it’s a straight line, x-y components are identical.

The y component at 6:00 has no torque.
The x component at 6:00 has a full radius of torque.

When the lever get hit, the x component at 2:00 transfer to the pivot and has about half radius of torque.
The y component at 2:00 only flip the lever. But the lever centrifugal force during flipping is the y component and has almost full radius of torque.

If the speed at 6:00 and 2:00 is identical, all torques cancel out. If they’re not and the aren’t, there is a net torque.

The back torque at 6:00 is rather small considering the low mass of the lever and the angle of impact. The upload is of an older design but still applicable. When the 6:00 lever swings up and launches the red weight, its fulcrum moves over near 7:00 and its tip hits the top of the blue guide near 6:00. The angle between the pink force vector and the gray radial line is small. My current design has a spring at the tip of the lever to absorb some of the impact energy as well.

Torque = Frsin(theta), where F is Force vector of the upswing lever, r is radial length at the point of impact and theta is angle of impact.

The net torque of the system mainly comes from the much heavier yellow weights on the descending side positioned near the rim from 3:00 to 6:00.

[Leafy]

It’s just an illustration for Tarsier, not anything specific.