Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy

[daanopperman]

Hi Fletcher ,

We cannot let it slip that a Roberval beam is only balanced in all deg's because of the friction of the base to earth . If you place a rb in a wheel , no matter the position of the anchor , the rb will act as a lever , by increasing or decreasing the flail , you will alter the leverage .

[Fletcher]

Right on.

Back to dax's comment for a moment - I don't think the angle the flail's wheel weight makes with rim stop matters to much - that changes consistently as the flail pushes the stop thru to 3 o'cl.

What is important is the horizontal distance from the Center of Rotation which is the axle - the RB has its own natural radius which is where the horizontal lever attaches to the gear (let's say 1m in a 2m radius wheel) - the leverage effect is the new radius on the down going side at about 2m.

Any attempt to create a purely mechanical PMM must break symmetries, one avenue being the leverage of the flail.

The other consideration that we see from the hangar & batteries sim experiments is that letting the mass move outwards will reduce tangential KE when it impacts the rim - this is proportional to the increase or decrease in radius.

ATEOTD, if a true mechanical PMM can exist as per Bessler's claim, then it is likely that the Work Energy Equivalence Theorem will be one of the first things to be re-examined, IMO.

[Fletcher]

dax ..

I will only say the following: no wheel is moved through strong blows, for paddles would sooner dash it into 1000 pieces

[daxwc]

Yes, interesting Fletcher the 3rd last quote in MT and on impact wheel principles before moving on silent.


Fletcher do you recognise a RBGS in MT or elements of it?

[Fletcher]

Let's look at some possibilities.

MT137 (just prior to the toy page) - this seems to have little purpose but to show force balance & symmetry, IMO.

MTs138,139,140,141 :- the "Toy's Page" - "something extraordinary for anyone who knows how to apply them in a different way"

Pantographs all thru it e.g.

A - the links of the Jacob's Ladder toy (chain)
B - the flail falling
C & D - pantographs & flails
E - pantographs & suggestion of force transfer thru movement or extension i.e. a linear gear analogue for force.

MT143 (last picture in the book) - Roberval Balance variation - with gear elements introduced.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

MT143 (last picture in the book) - Roberval Balance variation - with gear elements introduced.

Wow, right under my nose but I didn’t see the most obvious one.

Just a fleeting thought Pantographs vs RBGS, Bessler’s principle change of the bidirectional wheel?

If total MOI suddenly changed and sped the wheel up could a bob at a constant radius be put over the top for reset? ( I know, not an element of the design as it presently sits.)

[Fletcher]

I'll get back to you dax.

What I can say is that we know that Bessler's wheels did contain one element that is not in dispute - witnesses saw it, specifically Christian Wolff.

The rim stops (short boards at the circumference).

Additionally, assuming that Wolff was of average size then his head would be below the wheel axle height (but we don't know where he viewed the wheel from or which side he was talking about i.e. downgoing or upgoing side).

He said paraphrased that there was empty space to the rim, as he saw thru the covering boards gaps - he could see no weights rising or falling.

Remember my comment about containing devices on the spokes, as a possibility.

Here is MT18 - Bessler writes ...

"the principle should not be disdained or entirely disregarded, for it says (FT: loud/noisy) more than it shows. I, however, will show more than speak of it at the appropriate place."

[triplock]

Fletcher,

I have to say that this is the best thread for a very long time on this forum.

It is really nice to see critical thinking at work. You're sooo close to resolving it but yet so far away at the same time because you're over thinking it ;-)

Historical PM research has taught us one thing. Learn from that, then you're there.

For me, the search is over.

Chris

[triplock]

Fletcher,
Without wishing to detract from your excellent posts in this topic, I wonder if you are not just indulging in a bit of mathematical equation pornography.

What I mean by this is that is this premature over-indulgence just servicing a need for you to show others your breadth of knowledge in this field, rather than actually solving the problem. IE, has the act of solving and peer review become more important than finding the solution.

Also, is this mathematical over analysis not a classic case of the cart before the horse. For example, what came first ? the circle or the formulae to explain it ?

No offence is meant by the above. I'm just interested in your global position in this matter.

Chris

[Fletcher]

Fletcher,

I have to say that this is the best thread for a very long time on this forum.

It is really nice to see critical thinking at work. You're sooo close to resolving it but yet so far away at the same time because you're over thinking it ;-)

Historical PM research has taught us one thing. Learn from that, then you're there.

For me, the search is over.

Chris

I'm glad you enjoyed it Chris & got something out of it.

Bessler said he found the solution where everyone else had looked.

Personally, I think of this thread like loosening the knot in the bow that wraps around this mystery - if I can loosen it but can't undo it then perhaps someone else can.

When can we see your patent application Chris ? - I'd like to read it & I'm certain there are many more than just me who want this search to end & move on with other things.

dax, I haven't forgotten your question, just been crook for a week & a bit busy.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher,
Without wishing to detract from your excellent posts in this topic, I wonder if you are not just indulging in a bit of mathematical equation pornography.

What I mean by this is that is this premature over-indulgence just servicing a need for you to show others your breadth of knowledge in this field, rather than actually solving the problem. IE, has the act of solving and peer review become more important than finding the solution.

Also, is this mathematical over analysis not a classic case of the cart before the horse. For example, what came first ? the circle or the formulae to explain it ?

No offence is meant by the above. I'm just interested in your global position in this matter.

Chris

IE, has the act of solving and peer review become more important than finding the solution?

Also, is this mathematical over analysis not a classic case of the cart before the horse ?

I think you are wrong on both counts Chris - Bessler said he found his solution to true PM where everybody else had looked (paraphrased).

As Tarsier points out Physics does not allow a true PMM to happen, so we must explore alternate explanations for how this might happen if it is indeed a simple mechanical solution - I bounced around a few ideas which are really the roots of a tree of investigation that I have looked at at various times, in an attempt to rationalize the "impossible" if it is possible.

Whilst I might seem to jump all over the place with various hypothetical ad hoc arguments etc, it is to make sure I have kicked every stone I can think of in the quarry, & for others to see that path & why.

You will note I talk a lot about breaking symmetries & Noether's Symmetries in particular - as you can see this is no easy thing to do.

That's because of the way the physics & math weaves a thread that forms a rich tapestry - we need to find a loose thread to pull that will unwind what has been carefully constructed, over eons.

So, do I want to solve the problem ? - sure do !

Do I want to find an physics & math explanation for how it might be done ? - sure - in some ways its more important to me than the actual solution because the intellectual argument has far greater repercussions, IMO.

On that note, I will be back to dax soon with where I think the thread to pull is i.e. the mechanical contrivance that breaks a symmetry, I hope.

In the mean time I'm glad your search is over & I'll gladly look at your patents & explanations to see what I missed - I'm sure tired of "overthinking it".

[FunWithGravity2]

I hate to be redundant but i will reiterate my feelings on this thread, incredibly impressed on many levels. Thank you for what you are presenting and how you are going about presenting it. At some point some of us become gain a certian clarity, comfort and maybe a complacency about the whole "search'and how to handle it as portion of our lives. It is very obvious to me that Fletcher has had for some time that "clarity" of the place within which this journey belongs and it comes across well in your posts for those that are able to read intelligent ideas without being jealous or threatened.

Since the inception of this site NOONE has brought forth an idea with such detail in design both mathematically and mechanically while also showing much of the percieved relevance to clues that helped them along their journey. We are all aware that the contributor has more than sufficient skills in all areas required to complete or present a design and has never shown himself to be an attention seeker, so to think otherwise would be pure ignorance to do so. It is my current opinion that Fletecher has done far more refinement of his ideas than what we are seeing and more will be forthcoming.

Currently i feel bad for not being more helpful to "hashing" this out. Both my mathematical skills and engineering are subpar for me to contribute in any way that would be more than a nuisance. Hopefully i can just chime in and be the voice of the silent mass that is most likely watching and reading along with admiration for not only the design but the way the presenter presents it.


We dont have a "LIKE" button here so maybe the silent crowds should take a second to actually log in and make a random post to say "thanks", whether or not you like the design but to be supportive for a fellow member that is acting in a way that should be an example to us all.



THANKS





Crazy Dave

[justsomeone]

Chris. Please explain exactly what you meant by your search is over.

[daxwc]

Wolff examined the Merseburg wheel and seen through a slit a weight contacting a warped / curved / short board, but the drum is covered in canvas. So where exactly is he looking and what exactly is he seeing? Not much area to look at on the side view, so maybe it was the end plane? Which poses the question why had paranoid Bessler not waxed the slit up unless it really wasn’t all that critical to the principle?

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

On that note, I will be back to dax soon with where I think the thread to pull is i.e. the mechanical contrivance that breaks a symmetry, I hope.

Yes, I think I know what you are going but am very interested in what you have to say. Obviously I am trying to head your thinking in a different direction.

I will be honest; I don’t wish to kick your baby, but a few things worry me about your present design. Mostly that you will develop force without movement, which will become just stress, not unlike the hydrostatic designs. I think this will be due by not sending the counter torque directly into the axle or RBGS. I do agree with Tarsier79 that the mechanical arrangement needs to be different after the rack and pinion. I think the RBGS might have great potential and the prime mover we are looking for but needs free movement and a feedback system, which would put it back into the area of a motion wheel that needs gravity. Extreme example, if you wish to spin a carnival wheel with your hand it is easier if you get off it.

On the other hand I am no expert and just getting my head around the RBGS.



PS... Hmmm...Besslers inventory ….18) Spirit level of special invention.