Poss. Symmetry Break?

[ruggerodk]

... the anomalies in the image seem to be enticing us to search for easter eggs..
...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)..

My guess is that the pendulum DO rest in the depicted angle - at ALL time.
The moving part are the linkage arm (no. 9).

And hey; the pendulum pivot could just be sliding in the Z plane...keeping the same angle.

regards Ruggero ;-)

EDIT: The pendulum arrangement - as depicted in the right drawing (front) - are in total balance equilibrium...The whole arrangement standing on the lowest tip of the linkage arm.

[ME]

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.

<snip>
This was a group signing of a document of authenticity.

That's called "peer pressure".
Is it known who wrote the original text? My guess is by Bessler himself, while the rest just thought: 'It don't know what I saw, so it must be something like that'.

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.
<snip>
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.

I agree with the rationality of mind.
All we know is that cause and effect are simply paired; sometimes we just don't know which is which.

But the needed push (either some required velocity or acceleration) doesn't explain the self-starting capability of the first two wheels; perhaps explained by stored potential but pushing the main restore method further away.
When two mirrored mechanisms want to "self-start" in each their direction, they'll simply be balanced; this makes the bi-directional variants a less appealing study-object I think.

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.
<snip>
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 !

I would totally agree with you, and almost gave up on this whole thing, if not for the occasional "Huh!"-moment.

With some introspection I detect some interesting tendencies of the "rationality of mind" (ah well, at least mine).
When exhausting all creative possibilities and almost none are left, then rationality starts to generalize into (let's shorten it up:) current physics. Perhaps a small gap of hope remains.
When there is suddenly another "huh"-mechanism it could mean two things (or some variant):
1. The highest probability being a poor, misapplied or incomplete understanding of physics, resulting in this new thing failing miserably but is yet unknown.
2. And (I agree) an almost negligible probability of finding something that might do the 'trick': but also yet unknown;
With a lurking (2b) where this thing is just messed up by over-complicating the mechanism because of the same poor. misapplied or incomplete understanding of the real gem.

I think an interesting mechanism of the mind - whatever it does.

[Fletcher]

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's called "peer pressure". Is it known who wrote the original text? My guess is by Bessler himself, while the rest just thought: 'It don't know what I saw, so it must be something like that'. Probably, for most of them who would be quite nonplussed.

I don't know who wrote up the report. But if a group consensus for verification is required a discussion would take place and the text agreed after the event (it isn't a modern day press release done in advance). Yet they still used/accepted the word "began". They did not say it began to accelerate after a weight inside, was heard to impact a part of the wheel interior.


All we know is that cause and effect are simply paired; sometimes we just don't know which is which. That is right, and sometimes we confuse cause and effect and that is exactly what I think happened here. Both for the crowd (including Wolff) and for Bessler when he hit upon the 'one' solution that caused imbalance (of force) but which he rationalized in MT to many different types of OOB mechanisms that could fit the bill. If cause and effect are intertwined in a prime mover mechanism and a secondary mass imbalance system then it may indeed be very difficult to identify cause and effect, and perhaps they were symbiote's of each other where both were both cause and effect to each other at different phases of the interaction and exchange.

But the needed push (either some required velocity or acceleration) doesn't explain the self-starting capability of the first two wheels; perhaps explained by stored potential but pushing the main restore method further away. It does if the imbalance force comes from dynamics and not the static situation at start up. There the secondary OOB mechanism has either positive or negative toque unless at the position of least GPE (for that mech).

When two mirrored mechanisms want to "self-start" in each their direction, they'll simply be balanced; this makes the bi-directional variants a less appealing study-object I think. Yes, it makes it difficult to get a handle on what is what, and it adds another layer of complexity to the problem.


With some introspection I detect some interesting tendencies of the "rationality of mind" (ah well, at least mine). When exhausting all creative possibilities and almost none are left, then rationality starts to generalize into (let's shorten it up:) current physics. Perhaps a small gap of hope remains.

We have to have a base line. That is current physics including Newtonian mechanics. Weird physics only comes into the fray if it is matched by weird experimental results to back it up.

When there is suddenly another "huh"-mechanism it could mean two things (or some variant):

1. The highest probability being a poor, misapplied or incomplete understanding of physics, resulting in this new thing failing miserably but is yet unknown.

Always a possibility.

2. And (I agree) an almost negligible probability of finding something that might do the 'trick': but also yet unknown;

With a lurking (2b) where this thing is just messed up by over-complicating the mechanism because of the same poor, misapplied or incomplete understanding of the real gem.

Yep, I think 2b is the highest probability. For those then and us today.

In my mind that leaves an Inertial Motion Wheel of some sort with a 'bolted on' OOB standard secondary mech interacting (dancing) with the prime mover, as I've said.

Or, the same dance leads to what Mr V calls a N3 break. Or in my mind, more a redirection of forces that nullify or mitigate the counter force in one rotation direction.

[MrVibrating]

@Fletch - Yes, a general purpose "prime mover", must be the part that actually adds energy.

So then this prime mover would be some means of freely modulating inertia.

And not only does it have to be fully internal to the system, its operation actually depends upon rotating with the system - the "reserve" inertia fading in and out has to be part of the MoI, ie. with the emphasis on rotation, since any attached mass that decouples will take its share of the energy with it, and simply removing mass from a system doesn't raise its energy.

So literal pendulums might be of little use, at least as shown (because at their apices their mass is not part of the rotating system)

A system that would seem interesting to test would be two flywheels, connected by a drive belt which rides over a square drive wheel on one of the flywheels, with a regular circular one on the other. Rotation would be "lumpy", and maybe this would be equivalent to a varying inertia?


Whatever the system that works, the trick would simply be to coordinate the drops to when the MoI was large, then reduce the MoI to re-lift them again with the gained energy.

The figue skater effect costs energy, and is undone when re-extending so isn't cyclable. So whatever this prime mover the pendulums and water screw may be alluding to, it overcomes those limitations - it's free or cheap, and directional (the RKE gained is not lost when the MoI rises again, allowing subsequent gains to accumulate).

Surely we're zeroing in on an inevitable closure, finally? We may have an e-fit of our suspect, and the beginnings of a psych profile..

A varying MoI. Known to collude with motion, especially rotation, and likes One Direction.

Presumably the Toys Page must also make a corresponding allusion - the "something remarkable" or whatever the exact quote..

[jim_mich]

That's called "peer pressure". Is it known who wrote the original text? My guess is by Bessler himself, while the rest just thought: 'It don't know what I saw, so it must be something like that'. Probably, for most of them who would be quite nonplussed.

I don't know who wrote up the report. But if a group consensus for verification is required a discussion would take place and the text agreed after the event (it isn't a modern day press release done in advance). Yet they still used/accepted the word "began". They did not say it began to accelerate after a weight inside, was heard to impact a part of the wheel interior.

The only way to "hear" a weight fall is when it hits against the inside of the wheel.

To make a record of everything that occurred at the test, the District Magistrate, Johann Andreas Weise was ordered to attend. His account, plus certificates issued by the chairmen, jointly on behalf of the Duke, plus an additional one by von Rohr alone, adds considerably to our knowledge of the events which took place that day. In confirmation of the unanimity of all who were there, many others who witnessed the test, signed their names at the foot of the certificates in approbation of the findings.

This was the Merseburg (3rd) wheel. Bessler did not write this report.

[AB Hammer]

It seems to me that the whiteness assumed that weights where falling due to the impact sound the wheel made.

[MrVibrating]

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.

It chimes well with another clue: in a way, the weights themselves are the PM device. In which case, the manner in which the wheel recieves energy from them (ie. the MoI modulation) somehow depends on their remaining outside some center of gravity or mass / rotation or whatever.. (i forget the exact quote)

In the figure-skater analogy, KE decreases as mass moves away from the center, and vice versa, implying Bessler isn't using simple radial translations (which as we know can't yield closed-loop gains anyway). So perhaps we are to look for a form of MoI modulation that takes effect towards the perimeter.. in the direction of greater CF..?

[MrVibrating]

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.

Yes, if the MoI variation was applied to the weights themselves, the supercharged KE could be commuted / harnessed via a simple impact. And as you say, at first glance that would appear consistent with intuitive expectations of an overbalancing system.

But it's also consistent with Wolff's analysis. Particularly admirable is his instant recognition of direct evidence of what we now know as vacuum energy, rather than energy creation - proof of which is logically impossible, as he doubtless realised.

This may be one of the earliest such accounts!

[Mark]

In my mind that leaves an Inertial Motion Wheel of some sort with a 'bolted on' OOB standard secondary mech interacting (dancing) with the prime mover, as I've said.

:-)

[MrVibrating]

This seems to be a big clue... if the MoI reduction (and corresponding KE gain) depended on our boring old figure skater principle, the weights would be heard to impact at the center of rotation, where they'd reach peak KE.

But instead they land at the perimeter. So our MoI modulating factor is to be found out there, somewhere..

[MrVibrating]

Kinda in freeflow mode here, bear with me, but MoI is a function of mass and angular acceleration, right?

Lowering MoI raises KE because momentum is conserved thru a smaller displacement so velocity must rise.

We can't vary the mass itself, which just leaves angular acceleration.

It can't be angular acceleration towards the center (see above) - which is the familiar, but thermodynamically closed direction of travel in these matters.

Which leaves one direction - and the implication that there may be an outward-swinging gain trajectory...

Obviously, towards the perimiter angular distance actually increases, and resolving that apparent paradox implies the gain trajectory has a seperate arc of rotation around an independent axis.. or at least, during its gain phase.

[MrVibrating]

So what if we could apply CF or something to close the swinging arc of weights pivoted to the rim?

Normally, pulling a swung mass inwards requires a CP force to perform work against CF.

To get a gain from an MoI variation, it has to be passive... so maybe this is where a counter-CF might assist.

Or perhaps gravity...

Either way, the rough picture currently looks like sitting on the rim of a wheel looking inwards, swinging a mass from within (presumably) in a tightening arc back towards you.. and something about rotating in a vertical plane assists this effort, thus subsidising the gain. The KE gained is not equal to the work involved in narrowing the arc radius.

[MrVibrating]

..there's another angle - weights come in pairs, alternating between inner and outer positions.

If the gain trajectory is around the common axis then the inner mass is bearing the KE gain.

If OTOH (more likely IMO) the gain trajectory is around an outer, orbiting axis, then the outer weight bears the KE gain and the inner one is reset ready to be retracted back outwards again.

Moving that mass inwards is the standard ice-skater effect, also adding KE.

So potentially, both transitions, inwards and outwards, could contribute KE - the inbound one does anyway, so a KE gain from an outbound transition would be the novelty and real exploit. The inbound one still costs energy equal to its RKE contribution, but hey maybe gravity could asist there... Bottom line is that a clever application of the ice-skater effect, coupled with the usual simple version, could form a system that accelerates as a result of both inbound and outbound transitions...

[raj]

I am just enjoying this DEBATE.

Raj

[MrVibrating]

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 ;-)

LOL don't take it personal mate but the reason it took me time to read your post was looking up your terms for "conrod" and "crank" (save us all some time eh?)...

But YES...! And thank you - i pointed out exactly this fact earlier...

So if the intended clue is nothing to do with the potential GPE of the pendulums but rather their angular inertia (to which their oscillating GPE load is incidental), then we have a system with variable net MoI throughout a rotation.

With a 180° split, it seems...

So the wheel's MoI goes from high to low every half turn - a sinusoidal variation in the effective amount of mass undergoing angular acceleration.

In other words, analogous (perfectly equivalent, in principle) to dynamically varying the net mass of the wheel, or else radially varying the distribution of mass (ice-skater effect).. yet without having to do either, and so sidestepping thier inherent limitations (the former's impossible, and the latter costs input energy and can't be cycled).

In a nutshell, RKE is a direct function of MoI, therefore this system has non-constant RKE for a given RPM, per cycle.

There's literally more energy in the wheel during one half of each rotation, than the other.

Now consider the stampers - each is raised and dropped twice per cycle (Bessler writes).

So each is raised and dropped once each at max and min energy, or else at the crossover phase between these energy transitions.

In either case, i don't (yet) see a net gain.

However what i do notice is that raising and dropping the strampers exerts a counter-torque on the net system - the frame, which as noted earlier, is connected to the anomalous pivot at the far left.

So if we focus our attention on this cyclical exchange of momentum between the varying MoI of the wheel + pendulums vs the constant linear inertia of the stampers, the effective mass the stampers are interacting with is constantly varying....

Could there be a rotary N3 violation here..?