Fletcher wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:02 pmThe 'proposed' WEEP violations is imo about changing inertia's in the relationships, because basically I believe that inertia is the key component in his Prime Mover and runners ..
I would very much like it if you did run your own math on my cart and swinger pump and dump sims Gregory - since it is the basis of my theory for a free lifting of weights a second going over by you might give it better credibility ( assuming your math result is the same as mine ) ..
I will get there and revisit the experiment some time.
Regarding the role of Earth's rotation... I got the idea, that maybe you don't need to have a change in velocity magnitude, but only a change of direction or reorientation might be enough to mess around with something? Aka Foucault pendulum?
I don't know...
Sam and those who are wonder what I am talking about it is Borlach noticed a patch or crack opening up on the pillar/post:
Borlach Quote:
"The great wonder of the perpetual motion machine, so long sought in vain by the curious world, and now invented by Mister Orffyreus, made known through the 'Leipziger Gazetten' in the 4th article of the 36 week of 1715, of which [it was] observed on the 22nd July 1715, that a spot was patched/marked in the post at A and that same post lifted up in half a turn of the wheel, and with the other half a turn fell down again, which was seen because the post was coated/painted, and at B the uncoated/unpainted place always came out. Borlach."
You can see where "A "is located on Borlach picture that Fletcher posted.
Last edited by daxwc on Mon Feb 03, 2025 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fletcher wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:17 pm
Hey Gregory .. thanks again for the "fix" to the sim swingers - more than good enough to carry on with .. however I do have another small issue that I think you could bend your mind to if agreeable - it relates back to something dax said earlier in the thread and I kinda fobbed him off a little - I had been banging on about the DT engravings showing double pendulums etc yet I only simmed one with my swingers - I gave some explanation which was correct in one sense but the reality is that when I make double opposing pendulums they often behave erratically and spit the dummy quckly - yet for me and my experiments it is quite important that they don't, especially for the next phase of investigating the next generation ( upgrade ) MOI changing Prime Movers - I did have one workaround that is reliable but I lose other facets I want to retain ..
I wonder if you could take a look and see if you have a workaround or fix I haven't thought of or tried ..
Will post something up in the next few days - cheers ..
Hey Fletcher,
Sure, tell me more about what is causing the issue.
Or better... just show a sim with the fault and I will try to fix it, or recreate/reframe it in different way. Hopefully, I won't run out of steam. :)
1) The bearings are open. Tapered bearings set in U shaped trunnions as I understand it - if you look at the various engravings the axle protrudes thru the center of the support posts - I assume that the taper helped the axle 'center' itself and also allowed the wheel to be physically lifted sideways and removed and reinstalled into another set of support post and U blocks - also they could be easily inspected for foul play ( which there was none found ) - but the point remains that the posts were attached to the ceiling ! ..
2) Does Bessler put the C notch back on the pillar always towards the load.
3) Why doesn’t he just screw the bottom of the legs down if it is vibrating around. Because the post is attached to the ceiling and rests in a bottom sleeve mount ( it forms a post surround ) - that is where Borlach and Gartner saw direct evidence of the post lifting and falling ( at B ) because the paint work there showed the post moving up and down - they also saw a discoloured paint patch near the axle ( spot A ) also move up and down - thus the axle moved up and down with the post imo ..
4) Why didn’t he address Wagner’s barb; it is not of his character to avoid it. Why draw attention to something you don't want to discuss or have to misdirect about ?
5) Why did he never show it outside at the fair? Because they needed to be anchored to the ceiling to be a runner, imo ..
Now I assume the pillars went to the roof so the stone load lifting didn’t put leverage onto the pillars. Nice bit of rational deflection by B. - if you are going to conduct load tests like lifting boxes of rocks over pulleys why not let that help your runner function - make the post supports nice and sturdy and seemingly anchor them from floor and ceiling - then don't run the rope around the wheel axle and straight out the window to hoist the box load - take it down to a pulley directly beneath the wheel and then up to the window to put and extra down force on the axle - makes rational engineering sense, so you won't over side-stress your wheel - nice explainable, and convenient deflection .. Notice all his wheels were anchored to a rooms ceiling ..
No witnesses seem to report any axle movement in the bearings. Even on heavy machinery today if the shaft is not centered or taking load variations you can visually see the shaft move or flex in covered bearings in a race as Sam said "run out". So…? I believe Borlach and Gartner noted a spot at A near the axle moving up and down, same as the crack appearing down below at B - that meant the axle in its housing was also moving up and down i.e. it didn't move up and down in its U bearing, the whole post moved up and down, imo ..
Wagner was right to assume fraud because that’s how it looks. It could look that way, especially if you were of a mind set that it must have been fraud - most of us look for another explanation having discounted fraud as particularly difficult to pull off ..
daxcw, dam, daxwc, what's wrong with me?
I don't know what he means. First off the post can't move up and down. It's secured to both the floor and the celling. It can't move up or down. It's seams more likely that the block would be moving in and out,(side to side), as the wheel rotated. There must be a mistake. What he is saying can't be right---------------Sam
Last edited by Sam Peppiatt on Mon Feb 03, 2025 10:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.
daxwc wrote:
So with all that; how is the pillar post crack moving without the axle noticeably moving?The axle is free to move upward.
Yep .. the axle could move up and down with the support post if the support post moved up or down .. as Sam says there are ways to mitigate seeing this, notwithstading that as Sam said it was 6 feet in the air and behind a barrier in a room ..
It allowed for freedom of movement in one direction only; up and down but, not side to side--------------Sam
Also, the shaft would have been hidden by the bearing block. They couldn't see it that well especially six feet up in the air, mostly hidden by the block. The block moving, that's about all they could see.
The shaft was moving, that's what was moving the block.
Hey Sam .. you have a wealth of practical experience with these things which could set some things straight for others less experienced in these practical matters .. here are 2 topics from a year or 2 before you became a member here so you may not have read them ..
I suggest everyone take the time to read them now because it gives the details and facts of what we are discussing currently ..
dax wrote:
5) Why did he never show it outside at the fair?
Because they needed to be anchored to the ceiling to be a runner, imo ..
The same reason he never mounted them on a wagon cart and made the first self-moving vehicle - he had the technical know-how ..
The same reason he never made a self propelled river boat ..
Both would have been HUGE marketing opportunities to sell his wheel ..
................
Where I'm heading with this line ..
B. left us a complex jigsaw puzzle of pieces to unravel, then fit together to solve his simple runner mechanics .. but like solving most jigsaws you start with the 'frame' ( inside joke ) and work inwards ..
If there was a secret it was imo with the interaction of the gravity activated Prime Mover(s) and the wheels attachment to the room ( the frame ) in that the wheel was minutely jerked up and down and forward and backward which hoisted weights up to feed new torque into the wheel etc etc - ultimately the earth gave momentum to the wheel .. ok, we can call the padded wagon now ;7) ..
Gregory wrote:
Regarding the role of Earth's rotation... I got the idea, that maybe you don't need to have a change in velocity magnitude, but only a change of direction or reorientation might be enough to mess around with something? Aka Foucault pendulum?
I don't know...
Jerking the wheel up and down in combination with swingers maybe ? i.e. rebounding off the flexible ceiling lol ( the bow twangs ) ..
Last edited by Fletcher on Mon Feb 03, 2025 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That's right Sam - all these competent and experienced men could not find anything wrong in the tapered axles, or the trunnions from one set of support posts to the next .. and Karl said it was above reproach .. so we have to take it as that because there is no evidence otherwise ..
But we do have evidence from 2 experienced gentlemen that one support post ( with axle ) lifted up and down .. meaning it was not tightly secured ( not screwed as dax said ) at the floor on at least one post at the time G. and B. saw it in action - they too had reputations to consider so to collaborate in a lie would seem unlikely ..
Then we have various opinions here about how the wheels were disengaged and engaged again at the next set of supports - consensus seems to be that U shaped cavities were used which as you pointed out meant that the tapered axles could move up and down slightly, but the weight of the wheel would hold them down in the bottom of the U - therefore if the post ( with axle ) moved up and down then some force was jerking it up and down or perhaps 2 forces as I am proposing - the Prime Mover pulling it down and the ceiling beam pulling it up ..
Here is a picture that Stewart made many years ago - it is indicative of how he at the time thought the axle and pillow block could be fitted into and extracted from the wheel, while allowing full inspection .. what it does show is the axle going thru the support post and not a notch or groove per se .. either way the axle was not pulled ( around ) by any rope by some person in another room ..
I take it you read the 2 topics and have an opinion on what they were all describing was the set up of axle, trunnions, and supports - feel free to give us your thoughts on that ..
I don’t know the bearings were closed then Wagner got him to open them but it seems only on one frame that being after the translocation.
JC’s “Gründlicher Bericht”
Further, the Inventor, Monsieur Orffyreus, in the presence of all,
caused the Wheel to be lifted from the framework in which it had
hitherto resided. He allowed everyone to examine the framework
from top to bottom – especially the middle section, where some had
claimed that suspicious markings were carved into the board most
distant from the spectators’ vantage-point. He also permitted
examination of the iron trunnions on the axle which rested in the
bearings during normal running, and the result of all these
examinations was that not the slightest sign of any chicanery was to
be seen – and that includes the absence of any holes in either
bearings or cladding – in short, everything was found to be in perfect
and, indeed, blameless order. As yet further proof of the “innate
nature” of the motive principle, the good Orffyreus, unasked, after
removing the Wheel from its original framework, placed it in another
one some distance from the original, and there, with the new bearings
open at the top, he caused the device to revolve, just as before, in
either direction, at will, as often as the impressive (and impressed!)
gathering requested.
