Is this bookmarked link of any value to this discussion?
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ecco/004818 ... ;view=text
Ralph
Poss. Symmetry Break?
Moderator: scott
re: Poss. Symmetry Break?
Mr V Quote .."- this coupling enforced by the circular brace interconnecting both horizontal beams. ...... We're looking at Bessler's conceptions of heiroglyphs, not literal diagrams. Symbolically, they chart a consistent and succinct chain of logic. But as literal mechanical diagrams, they're complete gibberish."
-------
I think probably a "Bridge too Far" :-
Imagine at the connection point of the two levers inside the "roberval balance" type arrangement and the centre of the "ring shaped brace" (in MT 134 being discussed in the quote) , a cam or two in profile .
These cams could lever the two vertical shafts which culminate on the inside of the perimeter of the ring .
This would give you a very neat clutch arrangement to engage the levers (not necessarily both connected to the same cam profile) with the "ring shaped brace " (which could diagramatically be compared to a cross section of the 8" axle casing of the wheel ! ).
While I agree that much of what bessler has drawn is not to be taken literally , much of it is designed IMO to make you scratch your wig : )
-------
I think probably a "Bridge too Far" :-
Imagine at the connection point of the two levers inside the "roberval balance" type arrangement and the centre of the "ring shaped brace" (in MT 134 being discussed in the quote) , a cam or two in profile .
These cams could lever the two vertical shafts which culminate on the inside of the perimeter of the ring .
This would give you a very neat clutch arrangement to engage the levers (not necessarily both connected to the same cam profile) with the "ring shaped brace " (which could diagramatically be compared to a cross section of the 8" axle casing of the wheel ! ).
While I agree that much of what bessler has drawn is not to be taken literally , much of it is designed IMO to make you scratch your wig : )
Have had the solution to Bessler's Wheel approximately monthly for over 30 years ! But next month is "The One" !
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
@Art
Anything's possible i guess, the thing about that Roberval bit in MT 134 is that without the ring brace, it's not actually a Roberval - each side can flop up and down independently.
This would allow the two toothed weight levers either side to wilt downwards - the left one dropping ACW, the right one, CW.
So all that linear linkage would do is constrain those angular displacements slightly, adding a small linear phase to their downwards travel.
And as i pointed out previously, a brief linear phase in an otherwise constant angular trajectory would offer a brief window of opportunity to change radius in the absence of CF (ie. freely).
And that would be the end of the story, but for that circular brace.. because it prevents the mechanism from working the way it's ostensibly built to - the only way it concievably could! With that brace in place, the two sides can no longer drop independently in opposing axial directions - it converts it into a 'proper' Roberval, where if one side rises, the other side falls. So now they can either both turn CW or ACW together, not separately in each direction.
However this brings it back into consistency with the CW direction of travel indicated by the toothed weights. The brief linear phase remains, though, for whatever it's worth.
So my interpretation is that this is pointedly refering to a situation wherein both opposing armatures are torqued in the same angular direction by equal MoI-induced torques - ie. two opposing masses being drawn inwards, both contributing positive torques, which in turn cause the retraction of the small outer levers, which apply a secondary MoI-induced torque to the net system..
So, a '1st stage' MoI reduction generates these two on-board torques, but without applying either to the net system; instead, the two orbiting masses drawn inwards have raced ahead of the rest of the rotation.
These torques in turn drive the '2nd' stage' MoI retraction, decelerating the previously-accelerated orbiting masses, while accelerating the net system.
So MT 133/134 is following the same sequence of developmental progression over preceding designs, as, say MT 41/42 over MT 40, or MT 35 over MT 30 - Bessler is following a pattern of investigation - there's method to the madness, intelligence in how the territory of possibilities is scanned and the impossibilities eliminated. He's not running around like a headless chicken trying random branstorms, but following a carefully-plotted course designed to zero-in on the possible by methodically eliminating the impossible, in a way that effectively narrows the range of remaining possible permutations.
In a nutshell, he's applying a method, to make sweeps of what is, actually, a rather small range of possible gravitational / inertial permuatitions - g/g, g/i, i/g & i/i.. and this final stage is where we're at with MT 133/134; inertial outputs from inertial inputs.
This is why he consistently goes from using those long weight poles, to applying the wheel's own momentum - he's trying a gravitational input to the system first, with an inertial output, and then an inertial input, for the same inertial output.
This is why i think the 'toothed weight' poles are glyphs, for which the meaning has already been established in this preceding repeated logical sequence - the long weight poles are implicitly interchangable and almost synonymous with torques taken directly from the axle, the latter consistently following the former.
Also, we might ask ourselves, why this fairly obvious concept is only shown so engimatically - basically, encoded in his little idiosynchronous logic games? Nowhere in Bessler's works do we see MoI-induced torques explicitly dealt with - on the contrary, in every instance where they might be applied, the accompanying caption speaks only of gravitational equilibria... yet each such example also features that weirdly-inflected letter 'A'..
So yes, i accept that what i'm suggesting seems a little elaborate, but.. this is Bessler and PM we're talking about..
It is inconceivable that Bessler wan't fully familiar with MoI-induced torque. Yet, wherever it might be applied in MT, all we're explitly told is some inanity about OB, or lack thereof, yet with the inclusion of a funky letter 'A' in the accompanying diagram.
So is this really such a stretch..? From all the witness testimonies, the wheel's performance properties are most consistent with MoI-induced torques, and this is also most consistent with Bessler's own descriptions -
1) it's statorless - check
2) it involves weights trading inner / outer positions - check
3) despite (2), it's not the OB mug's game - check
4) the motive force (torque) comes from the weights themselves - check
5) it's applied at right angles - check
6) conspicuously absent by explicit mention, despite being the only other possible source of torque after OB, which he has explicitly dismissed out of hand..
I could go on and on (ahem) but for me, the mounting evidence seems to all be pointing in one direction.. i'd even go so far as to call it 'compelling', if only there were anywhere else to go..
Anything's possible i guess, the thing about that Roberval bit in MT 134 is that without the ring brace, it's not actually a Roberval - each side can flop up and down independently.
This would allow the two toothed weight levers either side to wilt downwards - the left one dropping ACW, the right one, CW.
So all that linear linkage would do is constrain those angular displacements slightly, adding a small linear phase to their downwards travel.
And as i pointed out previously, a brief linear phase in an otherwise constant angular trajectory would offer a brief window of opportunity to change radius in the absence of CF (ie. freely).
And that would be the end of the story, but for that circular brace.. because it prevents the mechanism from working the way it's ostensibly built to - the only way it concievably could! With that brace in place, the two sides can no longer drop independently in opposing axial directions - it converts it into a 'proper' Roberval, where if one side rises, the other side falls. So now they can either both turn CW or ACW together, not separately in each direction.
However this brings it back into consistency with the CW direction of travel indicated by the toothed weights. The brief linear phase remains, though, for whatever it's worth.
So my interpretation is that this is pointedly refering to a situation wherein both opposing armatures are torqued in the same angular direction by equal MoI-induced torques - ie. two opposing masses being drawn inwards, both contributing positive torques, which in turn cause the retraction of the small outer levers, which apply a secondary MoI-induced torque to the net system..
So, a '1st stage' MoI reduction generates these two on-board torques, but without applying either to the net system; instead, the two orbiting masses drawn inwards have raced ahead of the rest of the rotation.
These torques in turn drive the '2nd' stage' MoI retraction, decelerating the previously-accelerated orbiting masses, while accelerating the net system.
So MT 133/134 is following the same sequence of developmental progression over preceding designs, as, say MT 41/42 over MT 40, or MT 35 over MT 30 - Bessler is following a pattern of investigation - there's method to the madness, intelligence in how the territory of possibilities is scanned and the impossibilities eliminated. He's not running around like a headless chicken trying random branstorms, but following a carefully-plotted course designed to zero-in on the possible by methodically eliminating the impossible, in a way that effectively narrows the range of remaining possible permutations.
In a nutshell, he's applying a method, to make sweeps of what is, actually, a rather small range of possible gravitational / inertial permuatitions - g/g, g/i, i/g & i/i.. and this final stage is where we're at with MT 133/134; inertial outputs from inertial inputs.
This is why he consistently goes from using those long weight poles, to applying the wheel's own momentum - he's trying a gravitational input to the system first, with an inertial output, and then an inertial input, for the same inertial output.
This is why i think the 'toothed weight' poles are glyphs, for which the meaning has already been established in this preceding repeated logical sequence - the long weight poles are implicitly interchangable and almost synonymous with torques taken directly from the axle, the latter consistently following the former.
Also, we might ask ourselves, why this fairly obvious concept is only shown so engimatically - basically, encoded in his little idiosynchronous logic games? Nowhere in Bessler's works do we see MoI-induced torques explicitly dealt with - on the contrary, in every instance where they might be applied, the accompanying caption speaks only of gravitational equilibria... yet each such example also features that weirdly-inflected letter 'A'..
So yes, i accept that what i'm suggesting seems a little elaborate, but.. this is Bessler and PM we're talking about..
It is inconceivable that Bessler wan't fully familiar with MoI-induced torque. Yet, wherever it might be applied in MT, all we're explitly told is some inanity about OB, or lack thereof, yet with the inclusion of a funky letter 'A' in the accompanying diagram.
So is this really such a stretch..? From all the witness testimonies, the wheel's performance properties are most consistent with MoI-induced torques, and this is also most consistent with Bessler's own descriptions -
1) it's statorless - check
2) it involves weights trading inner / outer positions - check
3) despite (2), it's not the OB mug's game - check
4) the motive force (torque) comes from the weights themselves - check
5) it's applied at right angles - check
6) conspicuously absent by explicit mention, despite being the only other possible source of torque after OB, which he has explicitly dismissed out of hand..
I could go on and on (ahem) but for me, the mounting evidence seems to all be pointing in one direction.. i'd even go so far as to call it 'compelling', if only there were anywhere else to go..
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
Possible eureka moment - the pointy end of the hammers is the 'wrong' end - it's motion towards the flat end that matters.
Braking force. Momentum. Collision energy.
In which case, the torque of interest in MT 134 isn't so much the positive torque from drawing the masses inwards, as the negative torque generated when MoI increases again.
This would be encouraging, as what to do with these negative torques has always been a sticky issue. If however they're the very torques of interest then that solves one mystery, at least.
So, this would mean that a braking torque from an extending MoI on the main armatures causes a retracted MoI and corresponding acceleration on the main wheel.
Will have a play with this and see what falls out..
Braking force. Momentum. Collision energy.
In which case, the torque of interest in MT 134 isn't so much the positive torque from drawing the masses inwards, as the negative torque generated when MoI increases again.
This would be encouraging, as what to do with these negative torques has always been a sticky issue. If however they're the very torques of interest then that solves one mystery, at least.
So, this would mean that a braking torque from an extending MoI on the main armatures causes a retracted MoI and corresponding acceleration on the main wheel.
Will have a play with this and see what falls out..
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
re: Poss. Symmetry Break?
Well, here's a 1st draught of what i think MT 134 is driving at..
As you can see, the system begins already rotating, we're viewing from inside the rest frame, CF pulls the red masses outwards, generating a pair of torques in their armatures, which is used to pull the blue masses inwards.
For now, there's nothing else interesting going on.. i think it might work better if the armatures are pivoted dead center on the axle, so that they can't apply counter-torque to the wheel... will try that next.
As you can see, the system begins already rotating, we're viewing from inside the rest frame, CF pulls the red masses outwards, generating a pair of torques in their armatures, which is used to pull the blue masses inwards.
For now, there's nothing else interesting going on.. i think it might work better if the armatures are pivoted dead center on the axle, so that they can't apply counter-torque to the wheel... will try that next.
- Attachments
-
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
LOL anyone else see how Fletcher's momentum transfer concept might be aplied here..?
I'm thinking that as it's angular momentum, rather than strictly RKE that is conserved in rotating systems, and that MoI can be dynamically modulated on the fly, something i suggested back at the beginning of this idea might indeed be viable...
In principle, i think we can transfer the momentum - all of it, or all that we need, at any rate - between two coaxial rotating masses, of unequal MoI.
This would result in unequal RKE's between the two bodies, in opposite directions. The RKE disparity would be a direct function of the MoI difference.
The immediate problem i had with this is that although the opposing RKE's are unequal, their respective momentums are still equal and opposite, hence a simple collision between them won't yield a net momentum - or thus energy - in either direction.
But what if we do something else with the disparity instead? Like, juggling some GPE or something.. say, dropping a weight to accelerate the lower-energy rotor, and picking one up using the higher-energy rotor.
Getting a directional RKE difference is trivial. Two coaxial rotors, one's MoI goes down while the other goes up, both end up with exactly the same, equal amount of momentum they began with... only at vastly different energies.
Then we'd simply perform some gravitational work on the lower-energy rotor by dropping a weight, while raising another with the higher-energy rotor.
Then we swap the MoI's back, and repeat the GPE cycle at the other end of the loop. Each run in either direction inflating the value of the GPE put in at the low-energy end.
This whole thread's been heading in this direction..
I'm thinking that as it's angular momentum, rather than strictly RKE that is conserved in rotating systems, and that MoI can be dynamically modulated on the fly, something i suggested back at the beginning of this idea might indeed be viable...
In principle, i think we can transfer the momentum - all of it, or all that we need, at any rate - between two coaxial rotating masses, of unequal MoI.
This would result in unequal RKE's between the two bodies, in opposite directions. The RKE disparity would be a direct function of the MoI difference.
The immediate problem i had with this is that although the opposing RKE's are unequal, their respective momentums are still equal and opposite, hence a simple collision between them won't yield a net momentum - or thus energy - in either direction.
But what if we do something else with the disparity instead? Like, juggling some GPE or something.. say, dropping a weight to accelerate the lower-energy rotor, and picking one up using the higher-energy rotor.
Getting a directional RKE difference is trivial. Two coaxial rotors, one's MoI goes down while the other goes up, both end up with exactly the same, equal amount of momentum they began with... only at vastly different energies.
Then we'd simply perform some gravitational work on the lower-energy rotor by dropping a weight, while raising another with the higher-energy rotor.
Then we swap the MoI's back, and repeat the GPE cycle at the other end of the loop. Each run in either direction inflating the value of the GPE put in at the low-energy end.
This whole thread's been heading in this direction..
-
Furcurequs
- Devotee
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am
re: Poss. Symmetry Break?
I don't mean to distract from your thread, but since we've discussed some translations, I thought this might be helpful.
Here is a link to a 1727 edition of a German to Latin dictionary to help with all those early 18th century German language translations. Since Latin is a dead language, we can easily look up the modern definition of the corresponding Latin words.
The dictionary seems to have originally been in two volumes and is over a thousand pages. If you download the pdf file - even the non-text version - it is searchable.
(It's so big that it tends to hang up on me, though, if the search continues for more than a few hundred pages.)
This link should show "schnieben" highlighted. You can download the entire pdf from here, though.
https://books.google.com/books?id=5rZRA ... en&f=false
Here is a link to a 1727 edition of a German to Latin dictionary to help with all those early 18th century German language translations. Since Latin is a dead language, we can easily look up the modern definition of the corresponding Latin words.
The dictionary seems to have originally been in two volumes and is over a thousand pages. If you download the pdf file - even the non-text version - it is searchable.
(It's so big that it tends to hang up on me, though, if the search continues for more than a few hundred pages.)
This link should show "schnieben" highlighted. You can download the entire pdf from here, though.
https://books.google.com/books?id=5rZRA ... en&f=false
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
I prefer working alone.
re: Poss. Symmetry Break?
Quote .."Anything's possible i guess, the thing about that Roberval bit in MT 134 is that without the ring brace, it's not actually a Roberval - each side can flop up and down independently. "
-----
Yes , that's why I think there is more to that drawing than if it is only designed to act as a Roberval .
He could have eliminated the ring and the four pivot points and just made it a regular Roberval linkage if he had intended it to be seen as such .
But I suppose that's the problem with puzzles , you only know whether the piece fits or not after you have found the solution , and you can't find the solution sometimes without twisting and turning two or three pieces of the puzzle together to see how they give different solutions !
I think Bessler was a bastard : ) - So keep digging - who knows what will show up .
-----
Yes , that's why I think there is more to that drawing than if it is only designed to act as a Roberval .
He could have eliminated the ring and the four pivot points and just made it a regular Roberval linkage if he had intended it to be seen as such .
But I suppose that's the problem with puzzles , you only know whether the piece fits or not after you have found the solution , and you can't find the solution sometimes without twisting and turning two or three pieces of the puzzle together to see how they give different solutions !
I think Bessler was a bastard : ) - So keep digging - who knows what will show up .
Have had the solution to Bessler's Wheel approximately monthly for over 30 years ! But next month is "The One" !
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
..another penny's just dropped - if my interpretation of the long weight poles as glyphs for inertial torques is correct, then it can equally be applied to the mysterious pendulums in the Kassel illustrations:
So the opposing pendulum directions could signify positive and negative inertial torques. As already noted, the box hanging out the window via the diagonal rope could represent a force or load 'rising through the square' - ie. angular inertia rises by the square of radius..
The would also explain why they're drawn with spherical bobs but rectangular upper weights - the poles are drawn specifically to resemble those diametric weight levers littered throughout Machinen Tractate. It's the same symbol, applied the same way..
So the opposing pendulum directions could signify positive and negative inertial torques. As already noted, the box hanging out the window via the diagonal rope could represent a force or load 'rising through the square' - ie. angular inertia rises by the square of radius..
The would also explain why they're drawn with spherical bobs but rectangular upper weights - the poles are drawn specifically to resemble those diametric weight levers littered throughout Machinen Tractate. It's the same symbol, applied the same way..
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
Re: re: Poss. Symmetry Break?
Like i say, whether the two sides are allowed to move indepenently, or linked via the brace, about their only functional effect is to provide a small amount of linear travel to the otherwise angular displacement.Art wrote:Quote .."Anything's possible i guess, the thing about that Roberval bit in MT 134 is that without the ring brace, it's not actually a Roberval - each side can flop up and down independently. "
-----
Yes , that's why I think there is more to that drawing than if it is only designed to act as a Roberval .
He could have eliminated the ring and the four pivot points and just made it a regular Roberval linkage if he had intended it to be seen as such .
But I suppose that's the problem with puzzles , you only know whether the piece fits or not after you have found the solution , and you can't find the solution sometimes without twisting and turning two or three pieces of the puzzle together to see how they give different solutions !
I think Bessler was a bastard : ) - So keep digging - who knows what will show up .
And this could perhaps seem useful, as a way of briefly reducing CF, but i think MT 50 and 113 also flirt with the same concept, and its weakness is that changing MoI in the absence of CF precludes the corresponding acceleration in the first place.
I suspect another reason - one that John Collins has also mentioned - which is that Bessler's 'encryption tactics' involves things like conspicuous absences, redundancies and visual contradictions, to draw our attention to important subtelties...
For example - why no explicit mention of inertially-induced torques anywhere in his works? Why disguise them as gravity wheels, or substitute them with abstract symbols?
And in the case of MT 134's weird Roberval linkage, without the brace, it might not be clear, from the alignment of the circumferential hammer-weights alone, that the two inertial torques of interest should be in the same direction.
It would've occurred to him to clarify this, as previously-dealt-with designs involve both positive and negative torques, and masses alternating inner and outer positions. In MT 134 however, retraction of the small outer levers requires that both large inner levers rotate in the same direction.
So what the confused inner linkage means, i think, is that it's refering to a pair of torques that could be positive or negative, but that in this instance, both need to be in the same (negative) direction.
If he'd just drawn an ordinary Roberval it would've been almost completely redundant. However he's realised the implicit fork in the road, so the sign shows this, clarifying the intended path, while still acknowledging the alternative.
Maybe.
Whatevever, i'm gonna go rest me head a few hours, see if i can't dream up some way of turning a profit on negative torque..
ETA: another possible symbolism of the ring brace might be "paired forces sunk into the same wheel". Or something like that.. All i know is, anything mechanically redundant here has high Shannon entropy..
-
daanopperman
- Devotee
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:43 pm
re: Poss. Symmetry Break?
Hi Mr V ,
It is not my inability to grasp your concept of operation that is on the table , it is your ability to see little green men in all corners of the Rondavel .
"If we halve the inertia, the velocity must double, and the energy rises by half the square of that velocity increase."
This is a double edge sword . Returning the weight to it's original position eats up all that was gained before . You need something that does not reverse the action when resetting the mass , like a collusion between 2 masses , where one mass is in rotation , while the other is under the influence of gravity but also oscillating .
Nothing to inflame you , I just think you are in the correct forest , but at the wrong tree .
It is not my inability to grasp your concept of operation that is on the table , it is your ability to see little green men in all corners of the Rondavel .
"If we halve the inertia, the velocity must double, and the energy rises by half the square of that velocity increase."
This is a double edge sword . Returning the weight to it's original position eats up all that was gained before . You need something that does not reverse the action when resetting the mass , like a collusion between 2 masses , where one mass is in rotation , while the other is under the influence of gravity but also oscillating .
Nothing to inflame you , I just think you are in the correct forest , but at the wrong tree .
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
Re: re: Poss. Symmetry Break?
Fascinating mate, but is it paywalled? Can only see the abstract..rlortie wrote:Is this bookmarked link of any value to this discussion?
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ecco/004818 ... ;view=text
Ralph
Thanks, dunno if Jim fancies a peruse, as i say though, the "kids with hammers" quote seems to correlate with the lower hammer toy on the Toys page, but either way it doesn't matter - it's not some kind of inspiration or critical detail of this investigation, just an incidental throwaway observation. I'm working mostly from 1st principles, so while any correlations may seem encouraging or otherwise, the path is already laid out in terms of ever-diminishing available options. If there's anything interesting down this alley, i'll find it by sheer exhaustion of remaining permutations.Furcurequs wrote:I don't mean to distract from your thread, but since we've discussed some translations, I thought this might be helpful.
Here is a link to a 1727 edition of a German to Latin dictionary to help with all those early 18th century German language translations. Since Latin is a dead language, we can easily look up the modern definition of the corresponding Latin words.
The dictionary seems to have originally been in two volumes and is over a thousand pages. If you download the pdf file - even the non-text version - it is searchable.
(It's so big that it tends to hang up on me, though, if the search continues for more than a few hundred pages.)
This link should show "schnieben" highlighted. You can download the entire pdf from here, though.
https://books.google.com/books?id=5rZRA ... en&f=false
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
Re: re: Poss. Symmetry Break?
Tsk you're as bad as my therapist. I don't have to be able to see them to detect their transmissions.daanopperman wrote:Hi Mr V ,
It is not my inability to grasp your concept of operation that is on the table , it is your ability to see little green men in all corners of the Rondavel .
Fantastic, that's using your noodle, and i apologise for underestimating your comprehension - you clearly 'get it.'"If we halve the inertia, the velocity must double, and the energy rises by half the square of that velocity increase."
This is a double edge sword . Returning the weight to it's original position eats up all that was gained before . You need something that does not reverse the action when resetting the mass , like a collusion between 2 masses , where one mass is in rotation , while the other is under the influence of gravity but also oscillating .
Nothing to inflame you , I just think you are in the correct forest , but at the wrong tree .
I shudder at some of the crazy notions i suggest in these threads, but we have to push right up against the crazy to get close to the incredible. Generally i think i manage the restraint OK, at least by the following morning. But for every stupid idea that gets thru the crazy filter there's 99 more that didn't..
So yep, the potential prospects here are wholly contingent on an ability, or not, to break input / output energy symmetry.
And i'm keeping a constant watchful eye for any such opportunities. I've gone through some potential candidates already, so i know what sort of things to look out for and how to exploit potential weaknesses.
Utlimately, needs and circumstances will dictate which of these strategies are applicable.
As such i don't and can't have a definitive answer yet, but we do know that vertical operation seems to be a requirement, so gravity is likely to be part of the solution to this particular problem.
All i know is, it was this particular problem that Bessler found a solution to, as opposed to say a purely gravitational, overbalancing, solution. Of this i'm certain. There is a solution, therefore we can rediscover it, and there's actually not really very much work to be done in eliminating the impossible here. A thorough sweep must turn up something useful.
re: Poss. Symmetry Break?
I'll just throw this in here MrV .. probably gonna spoil your train of thought.
It's a kind of question I suppose.
Rotating masses have inertia determined by their shape, their radius, and their mass. This is independent of ambient gravity force.
The same irregular, or circular shaped mass, not rotating has inertia determined by mass alone.
So can a rotating object moving along a path have different linear inertia's depending on whether it is rotating while transitioning or whether it is non rotating ?
It's a kind of question I suppose.
Rotating masses have inertia determined by their shape, their radius, and their mass. This is independent of ambient gravity force.
The same irregular, or circular shaped mass, not rotating has inertia determined by mass alone.
So can a rotating object moving along a path have different linear inertia's depending on whether it is rotating while transitioning or whether it is non rotating ?
-
MrVibrating
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
This is exactly the kind of thinking required.
My immediate thoughts are that a body's linear and angular momentums are entirely independent - resistance to linear accelerations is unaffected by any pre-existing angular momentum about its center of mass.
Which might still present a potential weakness, although i can't see it yet..
Something else i tried yesterday was varying radial translation speeds, ie. sliding out quickly vs slowly under CF alone, w/o gravity. I found that the ejection KE with which the mass is flung out is deducted from the final RKE of the wheel. Again though, couldn't see any use for it - the linear KE is simply wasted from the RKE, or if it's recycled and fed back in then there's no point varying the translation speed in the first place.
Another thing i've tried is sliding the same mass outwards over the same radius at the same RPM / CF, but using different mass rotors - ie. different baseline MoI's - yielding different balances of angular / linear KE's.
I plan to try more on this today, varying the MoI by using further radial translations, instead of simply changing the 'mass' value in the wheel's properties dialogue box.
So for example the net effects (balance of linear to angular KE's) of pumping one mass in and out, should be a function of whether a second mass is in or out.
Inane, stupid even, nothing ingenious or complex... the way i see it this is just a laborious search, w/ fine-toothed comb, over a known crime scene. The evidence is definitely here, somewhere.
Again, logically, the most obvious exploits would be something allowing us to pull mass inwards on the cheap, or else something that counteracts the drop in RPM when mass slides outwards. But this could be too simplistic a view - an energy asymmetry arising from an effective N3 violation could be much more subtle and unintuitive..
My immediate thoughts are that a body's linear and angular momentums are entirely independent - resistance to linear accelerations is unaffected by any pre-existing angular momentum about its center of mass.
Which might still present a potential weakness, although i can't see it yet..
Something else i tried yesterday was varying radial translation speeds, ie. sliding out quickly vs slowly under CF alone, w/o gravity. I found that the ejection KE with which the mass is flung out is deducted from the final RKE of the wheel. Again though, couldn't see any use for it - the linear KE is simply wasted from the RKE, or if it's recycled and fed back in then there's no point varying the translation speed in the first place.
Another thing i've tried is sliding the same mass outwards over the same radius at the same RPM / CF, but using different mass rotors - ie. different baseline MoI's - yielding different balances of angular / linear KE's.
I plan to try more on this today, varying the MoI by using further radial translations, instead of simply changing the 'mass' value in the wheel's properties dialogue box.
So for example the net effects (balance of linear to angular KE's) of pumping one mass in and out, should be a function of whether a second mass is in or out.
Inane, stupid even, nothing ingenious or complex... the way i see it this is just a laborious search, w/ fine-toothed comb, over a known crime scene. The evidence is definitely here, somewhere.
Again, logically, the most obvious exploits would be something allowing us to pull mass inwards on the cheap, or else something that counteracts the drop in RPM when mass slides outwards. But this could be too simplistic a view - an energy asymmetry arising from an effective N3 violation could be much more subtle and unintuitive..