Poss. Symmetry Break?

[MrVibrating]

Those pendulums in the Mersburg illustrations - they're hung asymmetrically, right?


And they're also hard-coupled to the wheel's axle, via cranks and conrods.

Therefore, since their inertia is variable, so is that of the net system (ie. the wheel's own inertia is effectively modified by that of the pendulums').

The bucket on the right is a constant rate of input energy - a given drop distance causes a consistent angle of displacement of the axle and wheel.

But the actual energy of the wheel varies as a function of its MoI...


In short, we might try to raise the KE of a wheel using the ice-skater effect, except this costs energy - we need to pull our arms inwards against CF, and the cost of doing so is equal to the RKE gained.

And there doesn't seem to be a way of counterbalancing that limitation without falling into the old game of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

So, maybe here's another, alternative means to vary the MoI of a rotating system! The directionally-asymmetric inertia of the pendulums is entirely passive - the MoI is alternating freely under its own initiative, and thus the return value of the input work performed by the descending bucket is also varying freely.

Therefore the lifting and dropping of the stampers would be synched to this MoI variation, gaining or losing energy accordingly.

The Archimedes screw in the other illustration might then be intimating the same point via the square pulley (and consequent varying acceleration forces on the pumped water).

No time to investigate further just now, but this could be an interesting lead, right under our noses...

[ChrisHarper]

It is my belief that the CofE laws are absolute and correct when referring to single state conditions, but when you deliberating engineer a clash of states, and affix pendulums back and front , you get a migration of energy back and forth along the Z-axis or axle.

IMHO , the pendulums served several purposes:-

To draw off PE from one state.

To energise and give back to an exhausted state.

To regulate and synchronise .

For example, here I show my principles in action ( in sim ).

http://youtu.be/UpCamGrgD40

This actually has 5 stability state clashes.



Chris Harper

My Channel:-

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoaPoQ ... _as=public

[MrVibrating]

Given that the balance of views to replies suggests i've probably said something too stupid to merit comment, gimme a chance to explain where i'm coming from:

Like many here, i think some kind of inertial exploit is a foregone conclusion, and that any overbalancing action is thus incidental to this requirement.

Beyond the mere theoretical reasons for this, are the witness testimonies of how the machines performed.

My previous consideration to the characteristics of N3 breaks seemed unable to explain these descriptions - in particular, the way the asymmetry evolves as a function of rising velocity would require such a system to perform several revolutions before it was OU - even if i could've found a way to implement such a break, which of course i couldn't.

By all accounts, Bessler's wheels were OU well before they'd completed a single cycle - the most compelling evidence of which is the claim that it began to accelerate as an internal weight was heard to begin falling - so it wasn't adding RKE by resting against or thus overbalancing the wheel, and there was no stator for it to lever torque against. Yet somehow, the gain was immediate...

So an N3 break doesn't seem sufficiently consistent with that description of the wheel's performance.

But something that would seem very much consistent would be the so-called figure-skater effect - if a weight orbiting a common center is drawn inwards, its KE rises because momentum is conserved through a smaller displacement, causing a velocity rise.

If we could do that, then we could, in principle, gain energy from such a mass very shortly after it began moving - falling, even...

We could so imbue our weights with free energy, caused by their own intrinsic heaviness and motion, in a manner entirely consistent with the performance of Bessler's wheels!


But of course, most of us have been here before.

Through it and through it again, with fine tooth combs. And it always comes to the same dead end - it costs energy to retract a mass against CF, and that cost precisely equals the RKE gain achieved - it's a zero sum deal.

Similarly, we could try to counterbalance that cost by extending another mass outwards - and this does indeed make the translation free... except it also wipes out the MoI reduction, and thus any chance of gain.

So how else might we modulate the MoI? Perhaps there's some other means..?

And this is why the mysterious pendulums in the Weisenstein / Kassel / Meresburg illustrations might be interesting..

Their pivots are offset from the center of mass - so the arc length is asymmetric either side of BDC.

When these pendulums swing, the masses are thus moving a greater distance in one half of the swing, relative to the other.

IOW their inertia, transmitted to the conrods and crank on the axle, is varying - and because of this coupling, the inertia of the net system is varying!

The bucket descending at the far left of the image is doing more work during one half of the axle's rotation, than the other half of the rotation.

Each full rotation of the system sees the bucket descend by an equal amount. Input PE is invariant, since the bucket mass and gravity don't change.

But each half of each rotation - every 180° - the MoI experienced by the rope winding off the axle changes from high to low.

IOW, it effectively alternates between "heavier" and "lighter" - precisely as if its net mass was fluctuating, in defiance of mass constancy..

Bottom line is that the net energy of such a system fluctuates as a function of its varying MoI - assuming a constant RPM, RKE will be varying sinusoidally... ie. net system energy is not constant.

Possible symmetry break, or yet another useless triviality..? Boils down to however those stampers fit in... as you can see i'm not quite there yet, wherever this might be going..

(Edit sp.)

[MrVibrating]

It is my belief that the CofE laws are absolute and correct when referring to single state conditions, but when you deliberating engineer a clash of states, and affix pendulums back and front , you get a migration of energy back and forth along the Z-axis or axle.

Yes, the salient point being that temporal variance of conserved quantities places a system beyond Noether's jurisdiction..

The counterforces upon the axle may be important - note the far left of this image, where the system apparently attaches to the wall via a pivot and bracket:

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/p ... essler.htm

...which has clearly been migrated from THIS illustration:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/images/Kassel-1stFigure.jpg

...the implication being that we are to look for a counterforce affecting the net system - ie. that the whole system is free floating or free to react.

The next thing we then notice is that the aforementioned asymmetric pendulum arc and resulting variation in inertia will cause a net perpendicular force upon the frame. But then, since the pendulums oscillate back and forth, so does this counterforce and any resulting net translation. For this reason i don't yet see a gain mechanism there.

Hence the only other thing that seems remarkable, for now, is this non-constant MoI and thus corresponding net energy.

IMHO , the pendulums served several purposes:-

To draw off PE from one state.

To energise and give back to an exhausted state.

To regulate and synchronise .

For example, here I show my principles in action ( in sim ).

http://youtu.be/UpCamGrgD40

This actually has 5 stability state clashes.



Chris Harper

My Channel:-

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoaPoQ ... _as=public

Interesting sim (is that 2D parallelograms? Looks like pseudo-3D), and yes they'd have obvious use as PE stores and regulators, but then whence the magic? If there's clues here - and the images seem riddled with 'em, in both senses - then it seems highly likely they encode the principles of some kind of inertial exploit..

[eccentrically1]

The pendululums as far as I know were never used on the wheels in the demonstrations. If they had been used, surely the witnesses would have made a note of it. They wouldn't have helped the wheel with any of its loads. They would have been another load for the wheel. The bucket as far as I know is also never mentioned. If it had been on the axle, it would have hit the floor or, in the other direction, been completely drawn around the axle. I've never read anywhere either were seen.

[MrVibrating]

@Chris - I'm trying to understand the gain in your sim there, but it's all a bit of a blur so i've downloaded it, going thru it frame by frame now.. you have a varying GPE load (torque as a function of angle) and a varying MoI (as a function of varying radius), so it's tough to follow..

Have you isolated a gain condition / asymmetry yet, or sim error, or whatever? Tried WM2D Yet? It's good for tracking telemetry (momentum, KE, velocity etc.) of whatver components and so figuring out if something's realistic or just a tease..

If you sim regularly, you'll know we frequently encounter false positives, especially in chaotic situations. But a real gain has to have a deterministic cause that can be tamed and tested and described etc. in a simplified or easily reproducible proof of principle.

Sooo.. you moving forward on this or stuck in a rut?

[MrVibrating]

The pendululums as far as I know were never used on the wheels in the demonstrations. If they had been used, surely the witnesses would have made a note of it. They wouldn't have helped the wheel with any of its loads. They would have been another load for the wheel. The bucket as far as I know is also never mentioned. If it had been on the axle, it would have hit the floor or, in the other direction, been completely drawn around the axle. I've never read anywhere either were seen.

There seems to be an obvious facade of apocryphal consistency with the demonstrations given (bucket suspended outside window) but which seems just as obviously wholly superficial to the hidden message implied by the various idiosyncracies and occlusion errors etc. - not least the depiction of those curious pendulums. Sure, they regulate motion... and the sky is blue..

It's what they represent that's important, not their literal application - and a variable inertia could be the key ingredient in a potential symmetry break..

[eccentrically1]

The bucket doesn't go through the window, that's the box of bricks.
Pendulums represent regulation, the variable inertia is moot.

[Fletcher]

Given that the balance of views to replies suggests i've probably said something too stupid to merit comment, gimme a chance to explain where i'm coming from:

Like many here, i think some kind of inertial exploit is a foregone conclusion, and that any overbalancing action is thus incidental to this requirement.

Beyond the mere theoretical reasons for this, are the witness testimonies of how the machines performed.

... snip ...

By all accounts, Bessler's wheels were OU well before they'd completed a single cycle - the most compelling evidence of which is the claim that it began to accelerate as an internal weight was heard to begin falling - so it wasn't adding RKE by resting against or thus overbalancing the wheel, and there was no stator for it to lever torque against. Yet somehow, the gain was immediate...

... snip ...

But of course, most of us have been here before.

Through it and through it again, with fine tooth combs. And it always comes to the same dead end - it costs energy to retract a mass against CF, and that cost precisely equals the RKE gain achieved - it's a zero sum deal.

Similarly, we could try to counterbalance that cost by extending another mass outwards - and this does indeed make the translation free... except it also wipes out the MoI reduction, and thus any chance of gain.

So how else might we modulate the MoI? Perhaps there's some other means..?

I'll keep this simple in support of you Mr V. I'm one who also thinks that an inertia component is the game changer.

Logic says so, if you exclude fraud and environmental forces etc.

And if you accept that gravity force is a conservative force. Every experiment known to man confirms this finding. No exceptions to date. None.

What are the chances that Bessler found an overbalancing configuration that lead to more positive torque per sector than negative torque (which are always equal unless mass is given further height and GPE from an external source) ? Non existent I'd say.

And the rub is, in support of this contention, is that Bessler strongly hints in MT (unpublished) that he could get many OOB methods to 'Work'. But they need a Prime Mover, presumably of the right-handle construction. This is, and of itself, telling about Besslers understanding perhaps (warning : heresy to follow).

We all know that any 'wheel system' of moving weights will never continually overbalance so there is a surplus of RKE and momentum after transitions. It is possible that Bessler thought he found a way with one configuration that he attributed to a 'working' OOB system (Gravity Only), yet was not ! See paragraph above about many secondary OOB systems that could be made to work.

So the Prime Mover was the game changer for Bessler's wheels. Yet the Prime Mover did not create a OU wheel by itself and had to be coupled to the secondary transitioning weights system (many choices on offer). This means there was an interaction that made the Prime Mover dependent on the secondary system in order to manifest the inertial gain for the whole wheel.

Outwardly it appeared that an OOB Gravity Only system was responsible for the replenishment of GPE each cycle (i.e. excess RKE and momentum) but it was not ! Logically, IMO.

So find the relationship/coupling of parts (primary and secondary systems) that looked like an ordinary OOB system was driving the wheel, should one be imagined to work as intended.

No easy feat as we all know.

[raj]

I believe that the weights, whether swinging or rolling inside wheel, were symmitrically balanced when the wheel was at rest, but when in motion, the weights were continuously swinging or rolling from the ascending side to the descending and it was the countinuous motion of the weights that provided additional torque and momentum on and off every x-degrees rotational cycles, to wheel to continue rotating.

The weights themselves were primemovers.
When the wheel is given the initial push or pull, the top weight swinging or rolling MOVES FASTER than the wheel, thereby instantly providing more torque and momentum, to an already rotating wheel.

I believe a weight going downhill has more positive momentum than a weight going uphill negative momentum.

I believe the surplus momentum by the weight moving faster than the wheel, on the descending side than that of the ascending side, that pays for the frictional energy loss and continued rotation of wheel.

Raj

[MrVibrating]

The bucket doesn't go through the window, that's the box of bricks.
Pendulums represent regulation, the variable inertia is moot.

Yep you're right, it's a box of bricks. And this corresponds to a demonstration, where the box of bricks was raised, and hanging from an upstairs window allowed the extra travel for a really impressive demo.

But bricks or buckets or whatever, the image can also be interpreted in reverse - quite probably incorrectly, but then at the same time the anomalies in the image seem to be enticing us to search for easter eggs..

Whether an MoI variation is implied or even useful or not remains to be seen, hence this thread, but in principle at least, dynamically decreasing the MoI creates energy, and increasing the MoI destroys energy.

Not many processes create or destroy energy, but in rotary systems conservation of momentum takes precedence over CoE, and RKE is not necessarily conserved.

If MoI can thus be freely varied, the obvious solution would be to drop a weight when the wheel's MoI was high, inputting all of our GPE.

Then reduce the wheel's MoI, instantaneously creating an RKE rise (the wheel accelerates).

The value of that input GPE has now been inflated. If we halve the inertia, the velocity must double, and the energy rises by half the square of that velocity increase.

So modulating the MoI could create lots of energy almost instantly, if it could be done on the cheap. The places it firmly in our sights as a high priority target.

Obviously we could then use that RKE rise to re-raise the dropped weight, and then some..

And maybe you're also right that the pendulums just imply regulation, but then their inclusion remains mysterious - it's a redundant lesson (everyone already knows they're useful as regulators), unless regulation is somehow central to the energy gain.

Pendulums regulate... they also alternate, and these particular pendulums are depicted asymmetrically (they don't rest vertically), with occluded connections (ie. seemingly denoting a "hidden" link)..

It's a hypothesis, scraped from the very bottom of the barrel, but still a new one on me at least...


ETA: - and in the water screw image the pendulums aren't even connected to anything, yet are still included, nonchalantly sitting there behind everything else. With unequal horizontal sections. Just some random background filler..

(ETA2: and as noted already, in this image the pendulums don't need connecting because their role has instead been fulfilled by the square wheel on the water screw.. IOW it's not about the pendulums per se, and there's other ways to effect the same result.)

[Fletcher]

By all accounts, Bessler's wheels were OU well before they'd completed a single cycle - the most compelling evidence of which is the claim that it began to accelerate as an internal weight was heard to begin falling - so it wasn't adding RKE by resting against or thus overbalancing the wheel, and there was no stator for it to lever torque against. Yet somehow, the gain was immediate...

All that has been written above is the truth, and has been acknowledged by signatures in our own hand without any reservations... signed at Merseberg, 31st October, year 1715.

The machine was started by a very light push with just two fingers and accelerated as one of the weights, hidden inside, began to fall.

That is an important point I feel, to find an answer.

It always seemed a curious choice of words. Many, upon reading it, would perhaps think that there was a translation error or an inconsequential misspoke, and that the wheel was in fact given a slight push and after the weight impacted (made a noise) the wheel accelerated.

But that is not what it says as you point out Mr V. This was a group signing of a document of authenticity.

It says after a slight push the wheel accelerated as a weight was in the process of transitioning. I suggest that often (when presented with the unknown) our rational minds default to the familiar i.e. the weight falls and impacts, the wheel accelerates, and not the other way around.

[ovyyus]

As soon as one of the weights was heard to hit the downward rim (Wolff's short boards), the weight began to fall as the wheel began to accelerate. Therefore, if the wheel was turned below some critical rate (as described in 'sGravesande's letter to Newton), the weights didn't hit the rim and the wheel didn't start to accelerate.

[Fletcher]

http://www.orffyre.com/quotes.html

'...1. To begin with, it would appear to be beyond doubt that Orffyreus' wheel is not moved by any imaginable external force but rather, its movement is due to the internal weights which are applied in a special manner. My reasons for arriving at this conclusion are:

a) I saw, myself, that the wheel began to rotate with speed and uniformity, without any appreciable external thrust or push until it was slowed from outside. Any attempt at fraud from outside was impossible because the wheel bearings were uncovered on both sides and one could see the axle journals turning in their bearings. Upon request, the wheel was moved from its stand and put on another one.

b) Before translocating the wheel, the Inventor who was performing the test for the officially appointed Commissioners, took out the weights and permitted one of them to be touched, wrapped in a handkerchief. He did not allow the weight to be touched on the end, but lengthwise, it felt cylindrical and not very thick. One could hear the weights landing on the overbalanced side, as though they were swinging, from which one can assume that the overbalancing was caused by their impact. Furthermore there is the testimony of the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, who is experienced in evaluating mechanical inventions and had seen the internal mechanism of the wheel and ran it for many weeks in a locked room, keeping the keys himself, having personally locked and sealed the doors and windows with his own seal. He testified both verbally and in an officially printed certificate that the movement of the wheel was caused by nothing more than the weights and that it would run continuously unless the internal structure of the wheel was altered.

2. Since it is impossible, according to mathematical proof, for a machine to run continuously by its own force, some matter from outside must contribute to its motion. That matter can not be perceived by any of the senses but could be made use of by people who know nature better. I suggest, therefore, that the weights on the wheel's periphery are attached by rods in such a way that when at rest on the lighter side of the wheel, they can be lifted, but when they start to fall, after the wheel has turned, they deliver a force on impact, acquired during the fall, onto a piece of wood which is fixed to the periphery. In this way, the wheel is put into rotation by the impact of the weights, which can be heard. But the force which drives the weights, does not come from the machine itself, rather it comes from some fluid, invisible matter by which the movement of the falling weights becomes faster and faster. Orffyreus' whole invention consists of an artful arrangement of weights, in such a way that they are lifted when at rest and acquire force during their fall, and in my opinion it is this that he keeps secret. This is also consistent with what Orffyreus says, that anyone could easily understand his invention, as soon as he is allowed to look into the wheel.

3. It is possible therefore, that when the internal structure of the wheel has been revealed, some mathematicians may decide that it is not a perpetual motion machine as there is an additional force involved, namely the unknown substance which applies continuous pressure to heavy bodies when they fall, and which adds to the force of their impact...'

- letter from Christian Wolff to Johann Daniel Schumacher, 3rd July, 1722.

Wolff assumes things because he saw short boards at right angles to the rim. He also says in an earlier letter that other circumstantial evidence supported the idea of weights attached to moveable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel. He heard impact sounds.

I conclude, not only from this but also from other circumstantial evidence, that the weights are attached to some moveable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel. During rotation, one can clearly hear the weights hitting against the wooden boards. I was able to observe these through a slit.

Under the circumstances his assumptions would be normal. But this was not a normal impact OOB wheel.

We know this because Bessler wasn't overly concerned about recovering wasted energy of sound etc. He even used felt covering in some attempts to quite the noise, but then gave that up. His later two-way wheels were much quieter. When you have low elasticity impacts (less than 100%) then always some energy is lost to structural deformation and heat etc. At 100% efficiency and elasticity it is at very best a Zero Sum Game.

So he gained extra impetus and momentum from some primary action internally, and impact of weights on rim boards was a bi-product of the mechanical processes and a secondary action IMO.

[ruggerodk]

The counterforces upon the axle may be important - note the far left of this image, where the system apparently attaches to the wall via a pivot and bracket:

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/p ... essler.htm

...which has clearly been migrated from THIS illustration:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/images/Kassel-1stFigure.jpg

...the implication being that we are to look for a counterforce affecting the net system - ie. that the whole system is free floating or free to react..

One detail to notice in the image:

8. Pendulum. One in front and one behind the wheel.
9. Linkage arm to drive the pendulum.
10. Linkage from axle to pendulum arm.
11. Weights on the ends of pendulum arms.

At the left pendulum the linkage arm (no. 9) are down and at the center pendulum the linkage arm (no. 9) are up.
Curiously the pendulum arm in both drawings goes down at the same side!
And the pendulum weight goes up at the same side!

They seems to be mirrored - but they are NOT.

Even more curiously, the right linkage arm (no. 9) are up - and both pendulum weight and pendulum arm are reverse of the pendulum in the center.

This can't be...

regards Ruggero ;-)