Things of Intrigue

[Tarsier79]

I'm sorry. Idefer to your brilliance..... Just one question though. Why, if it wants to spontaneously collapse, and is such a brilliant design beyond the comprehension of most, isnt it powering your house? And why does your godlike intelligence stop you from seeing that gravity never shifts anything that is balanced?.... Oh, silly me... that is two questions. Plus I havve found the answer: It is because of the hexagon, isn't it? Maybe I should wear a pyramid on my head too.....Enlightenment and protection from the aliens. Maybe the prism acts differently if it has a hexagonal base?.....Brilliant!

[Gill Simo]

If I'm appearing brilliant Tarsier then I can assure you that it can only be a sad reflection of your own stupidity.
My only intention here is to investigate, by discussion with others of a like mind, the mystery of Bessler's wheel...not the apparent chip on your shoulder.
I suggest you piss off & deal with that all by your wee self....ta

[Tarsier79]

Counter rotating hexagons....Mind blown... This is the most amazing invention ever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM5q1Pzod1I

[Gill Simo]

Mind...?
Never quite grasped Aussie humor Tarsier.

[rlortie]

If I'm appearing brilliant Tarsier then I can assure you that it can only be a sad reflection of your own stupidity.
My only intention here is to investigate, by discussion with others of a like mind, the mystery of Bessler's wheel...not the apparent chip on your shoulder.
I suggest you piss off & deal with that all by your wee self....ta

"In the mass of mankind, I fear, there is too great a majority of fools and knaves; who, singly from their number, must to a certain degree be respected, though they are by no means respectable.

A man of sense only trifles with them, plays with them, humors and flatters them, as he does with a sprightly and forward child; but he neither consults them about, nor trusts them with, serious matters."

Lord Chesterfield

[ME]

Well, I don't even know why you used the word " Intrigue". You have just made something sort of the equivalent of two meshing gears.

I interpreted "intrigue" as a generalized way to "classify" our choice in debunk-opportunity.
I'm personally more puzzled by that "obliged to try yet again"-statement, because that might make this topic's opening post a personal one as I was the only one* responding in that 'Christmas Tale'... I thought that went pretty well, until I got confused :-/
(* Oh darn, Alan I'm not rewriting that sentence :-)

The point I'm at is that whereby I kinda desperately need someone to understand so that they're in a fair position to debunk...because, try as I may, I can't!

Actually that should be the most charming part in the pursuit of many rare things (as with perpetual motion): nobody knows for sure until it happens right in front of you.

The maths are fairly simple...

Perhaps the math of Geometry is.
The math of Physics is a matter of considering simultaneous interactions (action/reaction): that's where things get confusing - for any of us until we recognize familiar patterns.

Your idea assumes those discs apply a gravitational force onto the sloped hexagons and pushes them aside as a reaction. That will not happen when those discs aren't allowed to drop:

Note that any force is a mass with a potential acceleration like gravity (F=m•a).
When it is does not result in momentum (p=m•v) then that means there’s no real acceleration.
No acceleration no change in velocity.
No velocity then no change in position.
No change in position then no Force over distance (W=F•s) and thus will not be converted into kinetics (E=½m•v²) and simply gets opposed by some structural Normal/reaction force (not necessarily those hexagons).

Simplified: a ball can’t roll downhill and keep its altitude at the same time (as far as I know).

Hence we get a classical situation where things don’t move where we might suspect they should.
(option 1) They can only push those hexagons as long as those discs are already in horizontal motion while not using gravity as a vertical accelerant: But things (eventually) stop because of friction.
(option 2) The discs do have to drop vertically (I haven’t checked the geometry) to gain that needed momentum with the following necessary lift to make it reset which in its turn robs that momentum it previously gained: But motion (eventually) stops because it now has a point of lowest potential (where friction makes this an energy sinkhole).

That's what I think for now.

[agor95]

Hi Gill

I am the one learning here. So lets be positive.

Let us learn more.

The cross bar and disks collapse ans open up.

Then there is the hex rim.

The disc rotate with contact with the rim.

Both the cross bar and rim are in rotation.

Are there weights on the disks to make them imbalanced.

However balanced as a whole system?

[Gill Simo]

ME....thank you, yet again, for a considered & informed response.

Re the personal/Christmas Tale thing....your input there was very much appreciated....I was actually bitching/referring to the `Director's Cut` post that came after. I felt as though the more I tried to clarify so the more I confused in that earlier post, something that you have now confirmed. I therefore opted to attempt a better account at my webpage accompanied by the short video on Youtube...posting the links to both at Director's Cut.
I was of course hoping for a better response but I had but one reply, from Agor95, apologizing for not having the time to indulge (fair enough), nothing at the webpage, nothing on Youtube....it remains thus to date.

Re your points above:

I've argues for many a year now that Bessler's most revealing description of his wheel's principle tells us that weights, moving in accordance to some Principle of PM, sustain their motion by way of that Principle & that this sustained motion is transferred to driving a wheel, best a balanced wheel then?.

I have a hunch, a suspicion & no more, that we are, like thousands, if not millions before us, over millennia, locked in a mind set, so tight, that we are unable to address this notion....that we cannot help but focus on the only thing we know, unbalancing a wheel moving around a single, central, axle....
That we are perhaps, in effect, looking at a turning wheel, driven by a motor, an electric motor let's say...&, as if, despite some understanding of electricity, but with no understanding of what an electric motor is, we are locked into having to try & fathom how this big, heavy, blob of magnets & copper, sat balanced within, can possibly be unbalancing/turning the wheel....instead of addressing the harder but vital, better understanding of how electricity can turn a motor.

The arrangement I offer for appraisal/debate has nothing whatsoever to do with a wheel.... the wheel here is merely the chosen method of containing, receiving & thus effectively utilizing, the self sustaining motion that is operating within it.

That motion, I am proposing, is around two points & we should consider how gravity acts upon weight around two points in order to effectively assess it....not gravity around a single point.

Gravity here, I must repeat, is not, in any `direct` sense, driving the wheel around its single point. Gravity has no business with a balanced wheel. It is, I suggest, somehow driving the arrangement/motion within, around its two points.

Please, take a look at fig 1 here, the arrangement on Bessler's toy's page, twisted.....I have insisted previously that the arrangement I'm proposing will both collapse & expand under gravity. If you were to pin/restrain fig 1 at points a/b would this be the case? No...grabbing ahold of the two points that the proposed motion operates around achieves nothing.

Fig 2...same as 1, only now with two `spokes`...one attached horizontally to each point a/b. Will pinning/restraining the ends of these two spokes at x/y now cause the arrangement to collapse? Yes...we're now operating around the two points. Points a/b wish to fall, they're forced down/around....spreading them further apart, flattening the arrangement....& their fall results in no actual fall (higher2lower) at all.

And upon collapse add a further two spokes horizontally & grab these likewise....will the arrangement expand under gravity....yes.
Add spokes all around the two points, anywhere you fancy...better still, a disc therefore,....maintain a hold at x/y throughout & the discs will turn as the arrangement constantly collapses/expands.... for as long as you continue to do so.

And, as per any normal spoke attached to a point, the longer it is, the larger the disc, so the greater gravity's push/effect on those two points a/b.

We should look more closely & dissect further, what gravity is actually up to here...everywhere is it acting upon & what results from it.... it is here where we need to apply known physics, something I personally have little knowledge of & therefore require your help with.

What I glean, with my clearly restricted but to some, apparently too brilliant a mind for you's lesser mortals (lol) is the following...

Gravity in this instance is acting in more ways than one...& as such your point ME, re the push, rims turning & the necessity for a gravitational full, as much as I tend to agree, may be redundant, or if not, then achieved differently here.

Gravity here is acting straight down, upon the whole arrangement.
It is acting left/right, both push & pull, because of the arrangement
It is acting upon the two x-bars, attempting to balance them/the arrangement.

This, collectively, creates somewhat of a puzzle, to my mind anyway, one that I could attempt to unscramble....but that would require a whole load of extra, apparent, drivel on my part....I'd much prefer, if anyone else would care to dwell on it, that we do so by dissecting it, bit by bit, by mutual discussion.

However, I fully suspect & expect that you'll view all of this as utter bullshit.....so I shall continue to save hard & hopefully, quite soon, finally manage to pay someone to build the bloody thing, as I said I would do a few months back.

It's probably all a nonsense, it has to be of course...PM is impossible right?

It would be a great deal easier on my wee pockets to, with others, debunk this thing....either way, I need to put this one to rest in order to learn & move on....& not have to subject myself & all of you's to this endless, what must unfortunately appear, confusing, nonsense.

[Gill Simo]

Glad you have a little time now Agor...thank you.

The cross bar and disks collapse and open up?
Yes

Then there is the hex rim?
Rim no, rims yes

The disc rotate with contact with the rim?
The discs rotate & rotate the rims they contact

Both the cross bar and rim are in rotation?
The rims in counter rotation to each other, the x-bars cycle through a figure of eight

Are there weights on the disks to make them imbalanced?
No

However balanced as a whole system?
Everything (the whole system) is & remains balanced throughout, as felt by the main/central axle that is....the discs/x-bar arrangement seeks but cannot attain balance....it `falls` constantly

[daanopperman]

Hi Gill ,

Fig 1 , the bow tie , held at a + b , cannot fall .

Fig 2 , if x + y is not pivoted , the bow tie will behave as in fig 1 .

Fig 2 , if x + y is pivoted , the whole bow tie will fall . ( we assume the structure will allow this , unless the hex will cause this movement if x + y is pinned to 2 different hex )

[Gill Simo]

Thanks for your input daanopperman.....

Fig 1 , the bow tie , held at a + b , cannot fall

Agreed

Fig 2 , if x + y is not pivoted , the bow tie will behave as in fig 1

Agreed

Fig 2 , if x + y is pivoted , the whole bow tie will fall . ( we assume the structure will allow this , unless the hex will cause this movement if x + y is pinned to 2 different hex )

Please refer to the revised Fig 2 now shown...

Points x/y are not pivoted...as such anyway.
I'm probably guilty, in an effort to simplify matters, for actually adding extra confusion here when plenty already exists.

When applying terms such as held/restrained/pinned/grabbed at points x/y then this of course suggests either not pivoted, or pivoted.

More accurately, the two discs are each meshed/locked into their respective hex rims...the discs cannot turn without the rims also turning & visa versa.
So...seen as a snapshot then x/y are `held/restrained`etc. at their rims.
In motion these two points move up/around...being, in effect, just two points around each disc.

It would be simpler perhaps to state that both discs, in turning, are constantly `held` in their rims at points x/y, on the horizontal.

And not to forget....points x/y are constantly moving closer/further apart as the discs turn.....the mesh/lock always maintained/catered for by the two counter turning hex rims.

I fully appreciate if that only adds to any confusion....it's confusing enough for me to attempt clarity, never mind poor you/s.

But if you are now able to get a better gist of it then I'd very much welcome your observations again re Fig 2.....do they remain the same, or altered please?

[agor95]

Well it is a brilliant concept.

[Tarsier79]

Why?

[Gill Simo]

Well....it's a concept, nothing more of course Agor, one no better/no worse than any other presented here over all the years...all have proved fruitless & this one most likely the same.
But Tarsier....with respect, you perhaps have too little respect yourself for the beast we hunt here?
You might consider most seriously the quote that appears, or should appear, at the foot of my posts & thereby understand that there's no greater tribute to any concept's possibility of eventual success than the mind being reduced to nothing other than a simple `Why?`
So...thank you.

-------------------
"All we think we know is...always...purely the result of our ignorance"

[Tarsier79]

Actually, my question was aimed at Agor...: Why do you think it is brilliant, and in what context?

IMO,relating to the BW, a brilliant design is a design that elegantly solves a particular problem/ performs a function that progresses the whole towards some end.