Poss. Symmetry Break?

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi V,

your animations parts would start to jam at a lot less than 50 RPM, because of the effect of CF, that's if they could have worked in the first place which I very much doubt. From experience of working with jacks I can see that if the jack weights are the same size as the levers weight there is not enough leverage to work the jacks in a vertical lift, and that leverage is reduced as the levers rotate away from the sweet spot (jack latch required). It maybe worth your while to just draw in the CF vector to see what would happen as the CF gets stronger.

When Centrifugal Force kicks in it starts reducing the levers effectiveness, in short CF kills leverage, because of the CF vectors start to pull on the levers weights making it harder for gravity to pull the weights down (Less leverage force). It would be time for a redraw with a new layout.

When I designed my levered hydraulic wheel system, Because I already knew CF kills leverage I was only looking at 8 to 10 RPM, and 20 RPM max if I used variable pressure pressure release valves on the levers pistons to allow for the drop in leverage. Although CF was not a problem because I would have just controlled the wheel speed with the hydraulic fluid flow rate to regulate the drive motor speed and thus the wheel speed.

Edit, after reading your post again, you said the jack weights are smaller than the lever weights, so I dug out the video where I put drop weights on the handles of a 5 center pivots jack assembly and on the video I used 4 x 2.2 kilogram weights 8.8 kilograms of weight in total and it only just about operated the jack assembly's own weight (made from a riveter tool and unweighted) on a vertical lift, I new it would not work but I forgot just how bad jacks are for vertical lifts, that's why I do not use jacks unless they are a lot closer to the horizontal plain.

Edit again in bold.

[MrVibrating]

Yes, this is exactly Marcello's point, which i was addressing - that the maximum RPM a GPE input could operate at is a function of the specific loading applied to that particlar input - IOW if we assume a 4:1 leverage ratio, a 1 kg mass dropping 1 cm can balance a 4 kg mass rising 4 cm - without actually lifting it - although it could lift a 3 kg mass by 4 cm. However, even then, the range of RPM this will work reliably at is too low to explain Bessler's wheels' performance, which shot straight up to speed within a few revolutions.

The example i used employed long weight levers and jacks because the former have more GPE than MoI variation, and the latter have less GPE but more MoI variation. In retrospect it's basically MT 40, except it can also be configured this way:



..so here there's no actual 'lift', as such, and no change in GPE from the jack activation, so GPE input and inertial output can be neatly isolated. However now CF wants to pull the masses outwards, so the load upon the long weight levers becomes negative, and the same RPM limit is imposed from the opposite direction - the jacks can be reliably extended across a wide range of RPMs, but only once, as the GPE input fights to retract them against CF.


So the conclusion of this little foray is that Bessler's wheels clearly weren't too compromised this way. The torque was undoubtedly boosted by having multiple mechanisms, but the torque per mechanism still had to have been significant, to stably accelerate straight up to 30-60 RPM. Whatever the asymmetric interaction these mechanisms performed, it wasn't 'a little bit asymmetric' - we're not looking for a slight inequality - but rather, something close to fully asymmetric - so there's a full cancelation, balancing or other mitigation of forces, not simply a partial attenuation.

So rather than some kind of OU leverage principle - ie. one mass drops, raising another, but also, somehow, raising the net center of gravity, thus inducing an OB torque; which we agree would be an inherently speed-limited exploit - we're looking for something causing a binary change in peak force conditions, or something completely balanced against or isolated from a force, in an all-or-nothing deal.

If any of the ostensibly-OB designs in MT actually worked, they'd all run into this constraint, so none of them can be showing us the correct principle. What we're looking for is equivalent to being able to pick up a dropped weight while it is totally weightless, or retract a mass inwards without having to pull against CF, or else send one back outwards without incurring any angular inertia and thus negative torque.

So yep, jacks aren't great for 'lifting' as by leverage - which is intrinsically speed limiting - and so of limited value to the whole OB game. But they're ideal for varying MoI quickly, and hence converting PE to RKE swiftly and efficiently (much more efficient than OB)..


(ETA: obviously, the GPE input in the above example could extend or retract the MoI-varying masses - they're balanced against gravity either way, only the sign of the CF/CP load applied to the long levers is altered, with the same RPM constraint)

[MrVibrating]

I read your thread with interest MrV.

And I hold firm to the belief that there is a primary system (the Prime Mover mech(s)) that acts pretty much as you say.

And that there is an abundance of options for the secondary OB mechanisms of which MT48 is but one (and glaringly not a 'normal' OB subsystem).

What I can't decide is if there is ONE Prime Mover mech or many Prime Mover mechs e.g. an 8 division wheel with 8 OB subsystems has 1 Prime Mover acting 8 times per revolution or 8 Prime Movers acting once per revolution ??

Keep up the great work. Hit a nut enough times and it will eventually crack.

LOL cheers mate and that's an interesting thought - if the missing ingredient is some kind of central brace or Roberval, perhaps multiple mechs can engage with it simulataneously..

But yep, i firmly beleive that no matter how far out we remain, we have our quarry cornered.. it's just a matter of methodically closing the net.

[daxwc]

So yep, jacks aren't great for 'lifting' as by leverage - which is intrinsically speed limiting - and so of limited value to the whole OB game. But they're ideal for varying MoI quickly, and hence converting PE to RKE swiftly and efficiently (much more efficient than OB).

That is very observant Mr. Vibrating. This also could make a total system very unstable inside a rotating frame of reference.

[Fletcher]

I read your thread with interest MrV.

And I hold firm to the belief that there is a primary system (the Prime Mover mech(s)) that acts pretty much as you say.

And that there is an abundance of options for the secondary OB mechanisms of which MT48 is but one (and glaringly not a 'normal' OB subsystem).

What I can't decide is if there is ONE Prime Mover mech or many Prime Mover mechs e.g. an 8 division wheel with 8 OB subsystems has 1 Prime Mover acting 8 times per revolution or 8 Prime Movers acting once per revolution ??

Keep up the great work. Hit a nut enough times and it will eventually crack.

LOL cheers mate and that's an interesting thought - if the missing ingredient is some kind of central brace or Roberval, perhaps multiple mechs can engage with it simultaneously.

I’m 99% certain that there is a separate Prime Mover mech for each element of a (generic) secondary OOB subsystem .. i.e. 3, or 5, or 8 imbalance elements requires 3, or 5, or 8 Prime Mover mechs. One for each, paired.

The Prime Movers (plural) must by observation take a lot of room (shape and space changing) and be inherently bulky structures (Bessler’s wheels have big diameters to provide internal area and clearance for movement, the OOB subsystem doesn’t take much room which we can see in the various MT’s demonstrations).

A Prime Mover must by definition do two things, 1. move/morph (being a Prime Mover) i.e. the movement alluded to .. (the 'taken together find movement .. with a discerning mind' parable in MT) and what we’re looking for 2. interact with a (generic) OB subsystem element in a symbiotic way, in an energy feed-back loop or sorts, as part of a duet of connection and movement to create gravity imbalance – you’ve covered why the wheels were vertically aligned as have others.

But yep, i firmly believe that no matter how far out we remain, we have our quarry cornered.. it's just a matter of methodically closing the net.

Yes, IMO we’re looking for a Prime Mover mechanical mechanism that is a structure that gives us a movement that, in turn, contributes to a state of ‘all of wheel’ gravity imbalance with the elusive more positive torque than negative torque outcome. i.e. once in motion can't find its 'PQ' (can not rest at its position of lowest GPE).

IMO part of that escapade is the necessary changing of the Prime Movers MOI (which you are targeting) for which IMO is a zero sum game eventually because of re-set requirements, as proven by Stevin’s analysis of the impossibility of gravity PMM’s. To be clear, I think that MOI changes are necessary any time objects move position or change shape etc, but I don't think that MOI changes were the driver of the wheels, just a natural corollary activity that must ordinarily occur.

But that does not mean that Stevin et al was right, in at least one arrangement and movement of structures for the NET effect in Bessler's case.

So the net closes somewhat I think.

I'll come back with some of what I consider to be plausible answers to dax's previous questions a few posts back (and that you've also talked about) that I hope will reinforce what I said here today as being sensible, if not likely.

[Fletcher]

We know we are looking for a gravity imbalance wheel because of what Bessler himself says ...

"Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs, or other hanging weights which require winding up, or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."

- Johann E. E. Bessler, 1717

[Fletcher]

Carrying on ...

daxwc previously wondered why Bessler's wheels took so long to build and we've all asked how could they quickly accelerate to operating rpm (26 dual - 45 one-way) for similar diameter wheels, in only 2 to 3 turns. That's phenomenal and we all recognize that, especially 'bluesguitar' in previous years who also recognised the problem and sought the answer.

What we are after is ...

1. a gravity imbalanced wheel that can not find, rest, nor stop at its PQ, the natural 'keeling position' or position of least GPE, as happens for all ordinary PMM attempts. This inherently means more positive torque than negative torque contribution from the movement of internal structures and weights within the divisions of the wheel.

But it is constrained by ...

At the same time it can not be too affected by Cf's which occur any time within any and all wheels. This must have to do with placement of mass within the wheel and range of movement to be least detrimentally affected by Cf's.

And it must reset per division in order to restore/replenish GPE and satisfy Stevin's conditions.

But it must have excess impetus (momentum) and be able to do external Work - which current mechanical application of physics and math says it shouldn't be able to do because of Conservation of Momentum and CoE constraints.

How can a Bessler wheel speed up to operating speed in only 2 or 3 turns ?

It must have demonstrable out of balance characteristics i.e. it is so OOB that it is always heavier on the descending side than the ascending side, on average. That is, more positive torque.

But we know it had relatively weak power (energy density) for its size and volume – that indicates that the imbalance surplus was only relatively small and difficult or impossible to engineer into a monster. There was only a small net bias in its favour, no matter what its size dimension etc.

But, all other wheel attempts do not have an abundance of positive torque and so find their PQ, after system frictional losses are factored. So Bessler's wheels are different functionally from every other attempt at unbalanced gravity wheels.

But, Bessler said he found the solution where everyone else had looked (paraphrased).

So, a different arrangement of weights and internal structures that interact must be what provides an answer to the age old conundrum of a self turning gravity wheel that can do external Work, and be mechanically useful.

Why did it take Bessler so long to make his wheels ?

Bessler said that while his builds took a long time, skilled craftsmen would take considerably shorter time - yet he was skilled in the arts of watch making and organ building.

He also said that a bit of weight inexactness here and there did not make a jot of difference to the wheels performance (paraphrased). So, complete accuracy wasn’t the reason for the long time.

Yet it still took him a long time to build a wheel. Why was that ?

IMO, that was because his wheels used complex latch and release mechanisms, as well as springs as energy storage and release devices. These latches probably had to operate in more than one orientation/direction to maximize the imbalance potential of the wheel and work the most efficiently. That would take precision and complexity of design, and build, and that takes effort and time.

If we look at Bessler's comments surrounding MT13 he observes that it would run better with less friction and if somebody were to, like lightening, continually lift the weights up at 'D'. Yet this is only one of many MT's that show gravitational imbalance sans Prime Mover to do the lifting above at 'D'. Or a more likely possibility, lifting at both 12 o'cl and at 6 o'cl simultaneously. That would explain the complex multi-directional latch and release mechanisms required and congruently the superior OOB of the secondary OB subsystem, also seen in MT 15 etc etc.

[ovyyus]

How can a Bessler wheel speed up to operating speed in only 2 or 3 turns ?
>
But we know it had relatively weak power (energy density) for its size and volume...

Perhaps it's outer rotating structure was very light weight and somewhat separate from an inner rotating structure?

[Fletcher]

That's a possibility Bill. But I think it would require the complexity of some sort of gearing to enable that scenario ?! Especially if there were some sort of artificial horizon (like MT 13), when Bessler expressly says nothing hangs from the axle to thwart that.

All through these last few posts, when faced with alternatives, I have defaulted to Ockham's Razor.

When faced with competing possibilities often the simplest one is true.

However hard that might be to accept at times - especially when short of information.

So find the complete Prime Mover mechanism, and determine its movements, to find its function, in helping animate an inanimate object, or bring forth the life force as Oystein and dax say.

JMO's.

[jim_mich]

We know we are looking for a gravity imbalance wheel because of what Bessler himself says ...

"Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs, or other hanging weights which require winding up, or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."

- Johann E. E. Bessler, 1717

Fletcher, this is not a reason for assuming gravity imbalance. Earth Gravity is not the source of the oscillations of the weights, where one moves inward and one outward, then they swap.

Centre of gravity is a watch-maker's phrase. Within a watch, a balance wheel oscillates back and forth, never finding a position of equilibrium. Gravitate in this sense is NOT Earth gravity, but rather the center positions toward which the weights gravitate. One weight moves outward as the other moves inward, then they swap. Thus you have oscillation of two weights, one against the other, forever seeking equilibrium, but never finding such

This translation which you quote is not the best, but it's close enough. Making the assumption that "centre of gravity" means Earth gravity is a big mistake. The phrase refers to a watch-maker's balance-wheel type of oscillation. Take a second look and see if we can't agree that such is a possibility.

Secondly, CF is NOT an enemy. It is the force that gives the weight's their motive power. CF is the cause of the sudden wheel acceleration. The wheel's speed peaks when the weights can no longer accelerate and decelerate within the distance allotted to them. Up to that point the rotational forces are extremely strong.

The solution is a very simple arrangement, a very simple mechanism. But of course I'm not yet at liberty to disclose. I really wish I was. Then everyone would see how extremely simple the solution actually is. I'm not the bad guy here. Honestly.

If one were religious, one might think that the Devil is throwing everything he possible can against me. Who really knows about such things as the Devil ??

[ovyyus]

That's a possibility Bill. But I think it would require the complexity of some sort of gearing to enable that scenario ?!

If the wheel was just a light-weight canvas covered shell then it might be able to exhibit the rapid acceleration reported. Of course, we don't know what internal wheel structure might add and remove weights at the shell rim. Maybe it could be simple?

In one of Wagner's rants he mentioned how the Draschwitz wheel unexpectedly stopped during a demonstration and that Bessler said some parts must have rubbed together. Apparently, Bessler then reached inside the wheel through a single opening and fixed the problem. Wagner questioned how it might be possible that Bessler could fix the problem on such a large wheel through a single access hole. I don't have the exact quote handy, I'll try to find it...

If something went wrong with my machine, I'd mend it through a tiny hole, to prevent anyone seeing inside. AP 288

They who inspected the Draschwitz wheel observed in the middle of the radius on one side, a hand-sized gap. Orffyreus said that this opening was left so that whenever something came undone inside the wheel, he could fix it without having to remove the entire casing.
This just cannot be. If something breaks on the other side, which is several ells away and has no such service hole, how would Herr Orffyreus be able to fix it through this tiny opening? Critique by Wagner 1715

[jim_mich]

In AP...

XII (b) Wagner says that just before Christmas 1715 my wheel stopped, and when a certain person saw this, I anxiously said "its starting itself again", and yet had to start it by hand.

This is another of the sayings of Wagner, General of Lies. Just describe now, with your scratchy little nib, exactly who was supposed to be with me at that time, and saw the sequence of events you describe. It's time to ask whether Wagner is in his right mind, thinking up such scandals, and lying so impudently to the whole world. It's almost impossible to understand what's going on in Wagner's mind. Did some raging dragon come and give him these ideas?

in Wagner's First Critique 1716 ...

XII. Additionally, I must refer to a case which happened shortly before the Christmas holidays of 1715. At that time a certain person was viewing the machine which had been proceeding constantly and rapidly for a while when it slowed down gradually until it finally came to a standstill. At this point the person asked: "What does this mean?" In his anxiety, Orffyreus could think of no reply other than: "The wheel rubbed against something." This was a barefaced lie, for not the slightest rubbing had been hitherto noted; rather, as soon as he gave the wheel a push, it was running again. No fragile part of the wheel had broken (Reason: he did not reach into the wheel to repair a defect.) Much less could it have rubbed against something, as he alleged (the wheel would have had to have been situated differently in the trunnion seats), rather its movement had simply failed him. From this it is clearly shown that the great, alleged 70-pound force depends not on the internal motive principle or the superior force of the weights but on the movement of the wheel because although the wheel was complete, it was never powerful enough to bring its own bulk back to its previous speed.

[ovyyus]

No JM, that's a different quote. I edited my above post to include my reference.

[MrVibrating]

We know we are looking for a gravity imbalance wheel because of what Bessler himself says ...

"Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs, or other hanging weights which require winding up, or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."

- Johann E. E. Bessler, 1717

This could still be consistent with an MoI-based exploit - weights alternating inner and outer positions, thus staying out of the CoG. Also "applyng their weight at right angles" is consistent with inertial torque from changing radius. Similarly, if only one or other induces such a torque then the other does not, and we have our torque asymmetry.

I suspect Bessler was careful to give clues that seemed consistent with (mis)conceptions about how a gravity wheel would appear to function, playing to whatever thin seam of credibility might be offered by simply being able to conform to such expectations, while avoiding giving away the keys to the safe.

As such, in any 'direct' references, he could be talking about the peripheral GPE system, or the PM structures as if their gravitational considerations were paramount. That playful disingenuity, seemingly forthright, yet cryptic.

Also, if he is thinking about MoI, there are no standard terms to describe this concept. There isn't even a standard term for angular force, so what framework of relevant concepts is left with which to articulate something like inertial torque? In other words, use of the term "center of gravity" doesn't preclude any such gravitational effects from being epiphenomenon - maybe their state of gravitational balance is incidental to the cause of the asymmetry, but nonetheless at least provides an accurate description of the mechanism, if not its operating principle..

If we move masses between axle and rim to induce inertial torque, then OB / UB is inevitable but incidental. We could still use it to advantage - it could be a happy accident - but the game is still inertial torques, and gravity's the sideline.


The reason i'm so fixated on variable MoI is that it seems to be the only plausible wildcard that can affect energy outcomes in a big way.

As noted, we can't be looking for something that provides a slight advantage. An interaction 120% or even 150% OU seems too weak to explain the startup performance of his wheels. And MoI offers a way to change the energy value of a given momentum. It's trivial to convert a fast light high-energy momentum into a slower heavier lower-energy one - and not by degrees, but by 200% at once. No OB scheme - no form of gravitational or leverage advantage - comes close to these kinds of energy deltas.

An I/O GPE asymmetry can't cut it. It could never manage the required acceleration, and even if it could, it wouldn't be capable of the load-balancing characterestic - it would slow down when raising a load, and speed up when lowering it. We need something that switches energy scaling regimes, and applies inertial torque directly to the net system - on top of any gravitational OB torques.

A centerpiece mystery in this particular discussion is what on earth the UB weight was doing in Bessler's one-way wheels?

The wheel's tied off stationary, under static torque, without a stator, so there has to be either a retracted mass on the rising side, or an extended mass on the descending side, or both. Or else the OB mass is all on its lonesome, and a single rising and falling mass provides sufficient spending PE to play the MoI game with some inner system of paired masses. In this case, Jim would be correct in that the wheel needs to be halted in an OB position, however this seems an elaborate melodrama when the wheel could just be allowed to rest at keel, and rocked back into motion by hand - the whole 'static torque' aspect would be purely for show.


If this GPE is instead, actually UB, then it could be at the dead center, and also be re-extended from there without further lifting... but it had to be lifted there in the first place, by something else already fallen.. and the other weight's still up, in an OB position, remember.. so what raised the UB weight?

Besides, for reasons noted previously, the descending weight can't have been levering the other weight upwards, unless it was somehow rendered almost completely weightless. Otherwise we simply couldn't explain the startup performance, or load balancing etc.

But the UB weight can't be under influence from any dynamical effects either, while the wheel's stopped.

Such speculations could be a mugs game and not useful. Still, to me, the one-way wheel's static torque seems one of the trickiest aspects to reconcile with any prospective theory..

[jim_mich]

Still, to me, the one-way wheel's static torque seems one of the trickiest aspects to reconcile with any prospective theory..

No trick at all. When the one-way wheel was being stopped, then its weights swung or moved into an OOB condition, which is where Bessler locked the wheel. Being that there were a number of mechanisms inside the wheel, the wheel could be stopped and locked at any one of them. If there were eight bangs each rotation, then there were eight positions where the wheel could be stopped.

When released, the OOB of the internal weights rotated the wheel one sixteenth of a rotation, and during that small rotation the wheel gained enough extra force to rotate slightly more than one sixteenth of a rotation. Thus the wheel made it over its first hump, and then accelerated from there.