Poss. Symmetry Break?

[MrVibrating]

Absolutely true.
For a single reference, and within one system.

But I do think it's indeed similar to currency, and has no problems when things are interchangeable; while potentially skewing things when comparing (possible) unrelated/relative things as being absolute.
It's just a hunch (a feeling, or <I don't know>, something indefensible, perhaps even invalid or simple paranoia :-) that the term "energy" is sometimes used to point towards things which are unconnected. Where a sudden raise in energy (esp. in "distance-squared"-situations) is an explanation of something that might work while what's implied could be unrelated, while (as you almost point out) it would be more realistic to convert things back to RPM's, F's, a's, V's, dx's, etc.. - things which can be measured and tested - A minor obstacle, and shouldn't be hard to do.

Ah well - don't mind me too much, I guess everyone has his own rabbit hole :-)

I totally get you, velocity may seem the more tangible quantity... and it can be hard to have faith in formulas alone (or at least, some people's applications of them). But either way, the only proof of the pudding will be a closed loop gain (a real one, not just a sim)..

[MrVibrating]

After reading all the evidence and witness statements, it is my humble opinion that the 2 pendulums were in fact energy storage devices. It is possible that the enemy of Bessler's wheels were centrifugal force. Especially if the weights fell inwards on the up cycle. A means of slowing the rotation may have been sought whilst preserving the gain energy in the up swing to be released at energy flat spots in the cycle. I think he got around this in his later wheels by incorporating a fly wheel which achieves the same effect. This to me is the only logical explanation.

He did say flywheels were not to be sniffed at, but, like Marcello says, no witnesses (including Bessler) ever mentioned such pendulums being present during any of the recorded demonstrations that these diagrams purport to illustrate.

Ostensibly, you're right of course, and regulation / synchronisation of +/- torque phases could be done via some cyclical storgage medium such as pendulums (or flywheels, springs etc.).

But besides the historical inconsistencies are other, more compounding paradoxes - such as Bessler's assertion that "in a true PM, everything must, of necessity, go around together - there can be nothing involved in it that remains stationary upon the axle"; nothing was hung from it, and there was no stator (the wheel was a "peritrochium" - once piece with the axle).

Also note the other related points raised in this thread - the deliberate and repeated occlusion errors, the implicit asymmetric inertias coupled to the same side of the wheel, despite the surface appearance of being in alternate phase (so the net inertia is varying every 180°)... Or the stampers, that would have to fall upwards if the applied loads were being raised, as claimed. Lot going on in these pics, but this inertial theme is the most consistent thread i've yet to notice.

I do think there was likely phases of positive and negative torque - unrelated to those produced by gravitational imbalances, and instead a function of the varying inertia. I also suspect that gravity may assist in maintaining preferential orientations and resulting trajectories in a system of otherwise unconstrained and uncoordinated actions - recall Besler's careful wording when he says "all of the internal parts, and the perpetual motion structures, maintain the power of free movement, as i've been saying since 1712" - the two interesting clues i take from this are that a) there's some degree of emergent synchronisation, beyond those parts directly mechanically coupled (as by pulleys or whatever), for which gravity may offer a kind of 'virtual stator' to torque against, and b) that he's clearly distinguishing the "PM structures" from the other internal parts...

As Fletcher's noted, this is consistent with the GPE interactions being incidental to the actual exploit - the "prime mover" is not the system of rising and falling weights, which for their part are just a rolling 'float' of energy to play with.

[ME]

ME, I am not sure where your assumption that the pendulums were added to the drawings came from but I agree that there may have been balanced points in the cycle. When a wheel becomes balanced, no torque is evident.

It's never mentioned by observers (or the ones who have studies the observer's notes more extensively).
When there's a slight overbalance (which may be caused or stabilized by small internal pendulums), I suggested there will be no dead-points with three or more mechanisms. Having an unrealistic infinite amount of mechanisms its acceleration would be very smooth. Hence I suggested (I don't know: somewhere else) that there must exist a slight wobble in RPM between the beats of the mechanism.

[KAS]

MrVibrating wrote:
"But besides the historical inconsistencies are other, more compounding paradoxes - such as Bessler's assertion that "in a true PM, everything must, of necessity, go around together - there can be nothing involved in it that remains stationary upon the axle"; nothing was hung from it, and there was no stator (the wheel was a "peritrochium" - once piece with the axle)."

Bessler's "going around together" statement could still involve mass at rest on the axle yet still attached in some way at equalatteral pivots or operating points in constant rotation. It could be that he found a way to collect mass at rest ( say, at the axle, to rejoin the wheel at designated points.
That way, he could get away with this statement.
I believe he also said that one side of the wheel was full and the other side empty. Or words to that effect.
What an enigma this man was.

[MrVibrating]

Sooo, what was the point of all this again, i hear you ask?
Gaining RKE from closing MoI is a done deal...

The question is: how to get them back to the previous low RKE (or RPM) position while keeping the current RKE (or RPM).

Precisely the status quo today's work has attempted to address..


We need an asymmetry between the inbound vs outbound MoI / RKE integrals.

So i began by considering why RPM drops as MoI increases, and then trying to come up with a way of decoupling the radial vs angular inertias.. and what i noticed last night was that masses orbiting CW about a common CW axis, travel a shorter net distance between inner and outer positions, than a CCW-orbiting mass about the same axis.

So my suspicion is that maybe we can apply this principle to raise MoI without forfeiting the same amount of RKE we'd lose if we simply slid between inner and outer positions radially, in a straight line.

99% conjecture, 1% hunch, 100% hot air for now... But there's such strong consistency between the general idea, and a whole host of Bessler clues - incl. resolving otherwise-contradictory ones.. So i'm near-certain that Bessler must've been wringing RKE from MoI, which means there has to be some means of larging the I w/o knocking the V.

And if there is, i'm gonna find it by sheer elimination.

[MrVibrating]

MrVibrating wrote:
"But besides the historical inconsistencies are other, more compounding paradoxes - such as Bessler's assertion that "in a true PM, everything must, of necessity, go around together - there can be nothing involved in it that remains stationary upon the axle"; nothing was hung from it, and there was no stator (the wheel was a "peritrochium" - once piece with the axle)."

Bessler's "going around together" statement could still involve mass at rest on the axle yet still attached in some way at equalatteral pivots or operating points in constant rotation. It could be that he found a way to collect mass at rest ( say, at the axle, to rejoin the wheel at designated points.
That way, he could get away with this statement.
I believe he also said that one side of the wheel was full and the other side empty. Or words to that effect.
What an enigma this man was.

You can say that again, and that latter quote always gave me a stack overflow - combined with the "weights swap inner / outer positions" clue, implies that both these positions are on the same side of the wheel! Despite it's rotation!?

But i take your point - for instance if the wheel contained a loosely-interconnected center of mass hanging below the axle, or etc. - and he seems to revel in teasing ambiguities.. so it's just a working hypothesis. For creating RKE from an MoI redistribution though, it is a necessary condition that all of the mass involved can accelerate together at its new MoI.

Equally though on that point, perhaps the corrolary implication is that if we want to raise MoI w/o losing KE, then maybe we don't want everything to decelerate (go around) together... maybe instead, dropping something from the rotation?

Perhaps this is the real benefit of gravity - in getting back out to a high-MoI state, without incurring an RKE drop? Dunno, just bouncing off of your thoughts.... all options are on the table, i know what i'm trying to do, so whatever suits the mission objectives..

[Fletcher]

And if there is, i'm gonna find it by sheer elimination.

Thru the process of elimination, which calls for persistence and perspiration, sometimes arises inspiration !

But the cart of inspiration follows along behind the perspiring horse.

Power to your elbow Mr V.

[ME]

99% conjecture, 1% hunch, 100% hot air for now.

When conventional physics doesn't help (for 300 years) then we might as well shoot at random, we might hit something.

...and what i noticed last night was that masses orbiting CW about a common CW axis, travel a shorter net distance between inner and outer positions, than a CCW-orbiting mass about the same axis

The Radial motion relates to then Centrifugal/Centripetal acceleration a[Cf]=w^2*r,
It basically depends on where a mass actually is in respect to the axle.

The Tangent/Angular motion relates to the Coriolis-effect.
a[coriolis]=2*w*v
Where w=the angular speed of the disc, v=the velocity it travels tangentially.
It actually depends on the velocity and direction of travel.

[Mark]

Not that it makes any difference, but I just wanted to pop in and let you guys know that I am following this topic with great interest !

[MrVibrating]

99% conjecture, 1% hunch, 100% hot air for now.

When conventional physics doesn't help (for 300 years) then we might as well shoot at random, we might hit something.

I'm certainly winging it, but there's a method to the madness - i've long suspected an implicit asymmetry between P and KE, and others here have independently noticed it too. And i do feel an inexorable inevitability to all this, insofar as i believe Bessler had it - so there is a solution - and hence a thorough investigation should reveal it. In time, teh interwebz exponentially raises the monkey / typewriter ratio so if we don't crack it now, someone else will soon enough..

...and what i noticed last night was that masses orbiting CW about a common CW axis, travel a shorter net distance between inner and outer positions, than a CCW-orbiting mass about the same axis

The Radial motion relates to then Centrifugal/Centripetal acceleration a[Cf]=w^2*r,
It basically depends on where a mass actually is in respect to the axle.

The Tangent/Angular motion relates to the Coriolis-effect.
a[coriolis]=2*w*v
Where w=the angular speed of the disc, v=the velocity it travels tangentially.
It actually depends on the velocity and direction of travel.

Precisely. And hence so does its corresponding counter-inertia applied to the wheel / net system.

So the suspicion is that there's a curved trajectory (perhaps opposing pairs) that gets us back out to a high MoI position, without incurring the normal RPM drop.

I'll experiment with this later - will try linear radial translations as a baseline, then compare curved translations to see if we can vary the net change in velocity for a given change in MoI.


There's a thread of consistency between contra-rotating inertias and the contra-rotating pendulums in the Weisenstein images..

And also MT 41 - note how the radial spokes meet the axle - the indents there could imply that the masses swing through arcs orbiting close to (but quite not at) the axis.. and although little is shown of the z-plane, it's conceivable they counter-rotated to those positions, as the masses slide up and down the spokes... again, the scissorjacks are driven by opposing torques and meet - presumably mutually cancelling their corresponding torques - as the masses reach the peak MoI position. Conversely, the torques corresponding to the inner masses / lower MoI position are not cancelled... So maybe MT 41 is an alternate view on the same principle embodied in MT 143.

On the face of it, i would normally expect that equal opposite inertias applied in a moving frame should not affect the net system momentum (due to Newton's 3rd). If we can apply that principle to a widening MoI then Bob's yer uncle.. maybe we can rotate back out in opposing directions, accelerating the wheel by the same amount we decelerate it..


TBC...

[MrVibrating]

Very minor update - played with various ideas last night - clacking the weights off eachother in 180° arcs, and comparing RPM decelerations for various MoI-increasing trajectories. Nothing to reprt on either count, but i did notice one cool, if rather obvious detail...

I'd been wondering what possible benefit there may be to changing the MoI 'hill' between rim and axis, into a 'valley', where peak MoI is in the middle of the wheel... (since this is what opposing inner / outer masses do)..

And an obvious answer is that a mass will roll down a valley and up the other side.

So if the stator wheel in that last sim is removed, such that the arms are only synced to one another, but not to the main wheel itself, they'll nonetheless settle into a regular period - exactly as a pendulum - automatically rotating between alternate inner and outer positions forever..

So, in principle, no additional mechanism is required to activate or control the arms - the system's MoI and net RKE varies entirely passively, without further input energy. Will post a quick demo later, work now, but this bodes well and could help simplifiy things..

Still fixated on MT 41.. intrigued by the possibility that if one mass is increasing its MoI in a CW direction, while another mirrors this in the CCW direction, their two decelerating torques on their respective rotations are of opposite sign... so obviously, if they could be made to self cancel, the net system momentum should remain constant..!?

Could this be possible?

[MrVibrating]

The above idea - self-cancelling negative torques - seems a bit ropey. Will leave that on the backburner for now.

But here's that effect i mentioned this morning:

inertial frame:




Non-inertial frame:






..for some reason i simmed the wheel as steel last time - here, only the bobs are steel, everything else is plastic, hence the lower average energy.


The latter anim shows how the action is regulated by one mass of each pair trying to follow a straight line, accelerating its twin in the process, which then reverses and repeats.


So, there's not much else to say - this is precisely the general system we need; a passively time-variant MoI, and corresponding energy change.


If the hypothesis is valid, this is pretty much a complete "prime mover". All that remains is to add energy when MoI is high, and cream off the excess when it's low.

Remember, the expectation is that if we put in, say, an extra 10 J when MoI is high - which could be added by anything, such as a GPE input - when MoI reaches its minimum value, our 10 J will have been boosted up by half the square of the velocity rise.... so we'll have more than 10 J extra at the peak energy level.

Likewise, if we take out 10 J when MoI is low, that deficit will be shrunken at high MoI.

That's the plan, anyway... let's see what actually happens...

[MrVibrating]

Quick update


Will spare you the numbers, but so far not so good - torques applied to the wheel at either the max or min MoI positions show energy loss at the opposite MoI.

...50% success, maybe..

maybe not.

The problem seems to be that torques applied at max MoI - when the levers are all extended outwards - perfoms work against them, reducing their swinging arc and the net system energy; so the torque needs to be applied to the net system - right now a torque applied to the wheel accelerates its mass but not that of the extended bobs, so their inertia holds them back.

I could briefly lock the levers in position, then a torque applied at the main axle will accelerate the whole system... but then with the levers already at the bottom of the MoI valley they'll just sit there when unlocked.

Catch 22, for the time being...

But it's a failure to test the hypothesis itself, so inconclusive rather than a negative result. Will need to come up with a better test system..

[sleepy]

Mr.V,
This little concept is so cool! Have you tried setting the bobs 180 degrees out of phase?Oh,gosh,there's so many configurations! Love the thought process and the follow through.This is the kind of idea sharing that really inspires and furthers the cause.Thanks for sharing.

[MrVibrating]

Just shot out of bed and fired up the PC, Eureka moment: was considering storing the arm's momentum in a central flywheel - the system basically wants to minimise its RKE by maximising its MoI, so if we begin in the low MoI state, rotation of the wheel causes the arms to seek max-MoI, and in so doing transfer their momentum to a flywheel. Then they can be held in place while the net system is accelerated (energy input), without lagging behind due to their inertia.

But this just shifts the goalposts - now the flywheel's inertia lags behind the acceleration instead.

Bottom line is that if the arm's momentum is stored as momentum, elsewhere or anywhere, that stockpile's gonna interfere with the required acceleration.


But if it was stored in a spring instead, then it's no longer actual 'momentum', but merely its potential, and so can't interfere with the net system acceleration..


So we'd let the arms swing outwards, loading the spring, and then locking momentarilly into full extension while we add 1 unit of momentum at peak MoI.


Then, the system accelerated by 1 unit of momentum, we unload the spring, restoring the momentum of the arms to swing back inwards, lowering the MoI and swapping some of our input M (or more accurately, I), for V.

Then we extract our 1 unit of momentum with its boosted KE.. net momentum in = net momentum out, all conserved and accounted for, with a nice clear energy gain...

Basically the prime mover has a variable inertia I, which oscillates between I-max and I-min. Then, on top of this ambient variation, we induce 1P at I-max, then take out 1P a moment later at I-min.

But it's Monopoly money, and we've cornered the market in inertia. We're selling our own stocks high, and buying 'em back low. The 1P we take out is nothing like the 1P we put in... its' M and V are all back to front...

But check the small print: CoM accepts no such liabilities - we put in 1P and got 1P back out; all CoM's obligations are met. CoE, for it's part, can't time travel - it can't retroactively prevent us varying MoI between input and output.. CoE only applies instantaneously, in the here and now. That's all it cares about, and as such, its job is also done and there's no anomally.. we have precisely the right amounts of energy at any given time for the prevalent distribution of M and V for a given P.

A logic trap for nature. CoE is just the bastard child of mass constancy, and defenseless against a variable MoI.

Back to bed now, more tomorrow..