Poss. Symmetry Break?

[John doe]

Bessler said the phrase "I then reminded him to put the horse before the cart",or the old German equivalent, in his hand written notes accompanying MT-20. He was talking about his friends wheel. The preceding MT-19 had the same Driver levers but without the accompanying Secondary OB 'flip' mechanism seen in MT-20. To me it is a little strange that he even included MT-19 in the unpublished Maschinen Tractate because it was already encompassed in MT-20 (which was an evolution of the horse to include the cart).

MT-20 doesn't work and there is no extra positive torque to rotate it well thru a sector in excess of negative torque contribution. So that order of long lever Driver (horse) and short lever Load (cart) is not correct, inferred directly from Bessler's comments.

So Bessler must have meant something else in relation to putting the horse before the cart. Cryptic and possibly double meaning as usual and encourages further thought I would suggest.

What is interesting for those looking at MT-20 is the original woodcut has a sole letter accompanying it. The 'bent bar' 'A' that many feel is significant in MT. Especially in relation to the toys page elements and actions.

N.B. The wiki MT-20 page does not include the single A.

......................

Let me start by saying I do not speak german or Latin so cannot directly prove or disprove my theory so if anyone has said experience I defer to ther greater knowledge. I also do not have the multiple texts and variations of said documents although If this project take much longer I will likely invest in such to hopefully gain a greater insight into bessler.
This is my personal opinion of this specific portion of this page...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... DSNH66LjCQ

[John doe]

Does that make sense or is that supported grammaticly in German or Latin ?

[agor95]

@Wubbly

I really like your clear informational posts on formula, submitted on 2016-04-19.

It would be good to keep information like this in one place.

If anyone else has others, that are not included, then they can be added.

I am looking at Visual Python for graphing etc. So if you put a copy of your post in 'M Turbine Simulation, Formula and Results'. I will see about producing some dynamic graphic results using that product.

There is a poll running on this topic that is at 100% 'No'.
So if you think it is a good idea please hit the 'Yes'.

Thanks

[MrVibrating]

Hi Mr V ,

In the com section on page 39 in the topic "would it be correct to say " where I address micegg , I have placed a pic of a mechanism I have constructed to try to remove the effect of mass on one side of the wheel .

The last couple of posts was about this idea .

The problem I have found is it is limmited to 180deg of rotation , as the one bar runs into the opposing bar every 180 deg . When the bar's is at 6 or 12 , there is nothing that prevent the 2 weights to just fall down , one CW and one CCW , so you have the 2 weights both at the bottom and no way of returning the mass to the same PE level without great expence . Also , moving the housing to the right or left , will leave the one weight dominating the other , as one is moving away from the center of the wheel while the other is moving closer to the center , the larger the 2 gears , the prominent this becomes .

To overcome this restraint , I have placed the gears with their bars next to each other on the same radius , each with it's own bearing or bush . (iow , on the same pivot radius )
This means the 2 gears is placed next to each other , and can independantly rotate 360 deg . To connect them together I have suggested a pair of grooved pulley's and a grooved drive belt , with 2 intermediate pulley's , where the intermediate pulley's is fixed to a frame . You can now have the 2 bars hor. at all times , making this a robberval beam . By removing the frame from the wheel , and placing a counter weight on the frame as in MT 13 , I was trying to make a see saw mechanism to drive the wheel .

Once you see the connection between the 2 opposing weights , wich have their bars always horrizontal , ( the gears are moved with the same rotation as to the wheel axel , 1 : 1 , this is now a robberval beam , and cannot drive the wheel by gravity . For a full rotation , if the gears pivot at 1/2 radius , one set of weights will be at the rim , while the other set is over the axel , exactly as you need . CF have no effect on the mass at the end of the rods , as they move in 2 different directions when one of the weight radius is altered , one wishes to go out while the other must be forced inwards , thus they are balanced under CF .

Now to the flywheel of the last post I made in your topic , if the flywheel is split in 2 , with 2 opposing pivots , and a spring to keep it together or closed when slow moving , like in a centrifugal clutch , you may find that when RKE increase , you will just store the energy , without loosing it . So the ice skater have pulled her arms inwards , increased her rotational velocity , but when the arms is to be let out again , her rot. velovity does not decrease , because the wheel is not fixed to the axel , but by ratchet , only the axel decrease velocity .

Daan .

Hi Daan, i went over that page of the thread (spent hours on it actually!), but still only have a poor grasp of the concept - sorry, i am trying.

Remember though, that if we leave any reaction mass behind during an acceleration, the net momentum will have decreased. Likewise, the masses changing radius / MoI need to be able to rotate with the wheel, and be subject to CF.. no CF = no MoI.

Almost every attempt at a solution is going to come up against conflicting requirements, and right now i'm not even sure if we're better off trying to vary the MoI of the wheel, or weights, or what..

Everything i've tried so far has hit symmetry, and my head's too fried from my day job to be able to focus properly right now..

[John doe]

If bessler was referring to himself in mt19 and 20 how would this change the context of his description of the cart before the horse?

Once again no with any linguistic skills on this whole website or access to the original text can confirm or deny the fact that bessler himself was indeed the friend being alluded to????

[ME]

Link: Text of MT 20

[John doe]

My theory is bessler is referring to himself as the injured friend.
Now in English this is supported and occasionally done to hide the fact that someone specifically (you) done has done or Are doing something stupid .
So bessler did something stupid and was injured ( thus the use of a friend) obviously whatever stupid thing he did it was related to putting the cart before the horse (or did something backwards).

My question is this can someone who has access to the original (German) text verify if this even makes sense in German ????
Thanks in advance.

[MrVibrating]

IMO, the bottom line is that like the linear scissors extension exercise the MOI which dictates how much energy the item can have is a squared function of the gearing, at any time.

In the scissors experiments the velocity and KE of the scissors was always matched to the GPE lost by the driver less the residual KE of the driver. What was left was velocity and KE of the lateral weight. They both added to the sum of the driver lost GPE. This was controlled by the gearing factor and as a function of that the MOI squared relationship to the gearing, as I laboriously found out.

In my thread it proved I = mr^2 (in sim world).

This is what we see in a circulating environment and what Wubbly shows in his calcs and diagrams of his previous post.

In his examples he doesn't use a drive weight (losing GPE) to accelerate a disk.

But MOI is a function of radius comparisons and the energy (Work In or Out) is a function of the gearing squared (r^2).

Just thinking out loud as we battle these thought experiments.

Yes, it's pretty much equivalent to looping two ends of a linear acceleration - the energy follows half the half square of velocity because for a given RPM the change in angular acceleration follows the square of radius.

Every angle i try either ends with a requirement for free acceleration upon MoI increase, or free MoI reduction. Or else, momentum left behind an acceleration / lost momentum. There has to be a way outa the box, i just don't know what it is, yet..

Broadly, 1 J of GPE can be added to the wheel either by reducing MoI, or adding OB torque.. but not both - i mean, we could divide 1 J between them, but there's no free lunch. We can't, for instance, use gravity to 'drop' the MoI around the top 180°, and also extend MoI while accelerating the wheel around the lower 180° - the former requires us to lift the weight first, and the latter demands two conlficting output workloads from the same input workload..

None of which is news... i knew from the outset how and why the iceskater effect is usually energy-symmetrical. What prompted me to start a new thread on the subject was realising that those pendulums in the Kassel illustrations also have variable inertia, besides their GPE / GKE stores... and here, the inertia is not varying due to radial translations..!

So the sole inspiration here, if you can call it that, is that there must be other ways of conceptualising MoI besides the ice-skater principle.. at least in its conventional form of single or balanced radial displacements.

This is why i found the last round of tests interestng - the co-rotating masses inducing much higher inertias than the counter-rotating ones, due to their greater acceleration / time and net displacements. So in that example, the inertia is varying both as a function of radius and angular velocity (additively and subtractively in combination with the wheel's).

Maybe such MoI variations due to angular, as opposed to radial, translations, are worth following up on..

My initial reservations with the pendulums in the Kassel images as practical MoI modulators, was that i was thinking only in terms of varying the MoI of the net system, whereby everything needs to accelerate together. But perhaps i set off on the wrong foot - if instead the objective is to vary the MoI of the falling weights, rather than the net system, then Bessler's insistence that everything must rotate together may be for other practical reasons besides converting the system's net MoI to RPM. Maybe simply boosting GKE is the better option - and would seem more consistent with Wolff's apparent description of instant gains (and his subsequent conclusion that the weights must've gained extra energy while falling)..

Most likely this angle will likewise go full tangent and we'll be back here at square one this time next week... but for now, i'm sure if we just look around, there's still a few stones left unturned.

[MrVibrating]

If bessler was referring to himself in mt19 and 20 how would this change the context of his description of the cart before the horse?

Once again no with any linguistic skills on this whole website or access to the original text can confirm or deny the fact that bessler himself was indeed the friend being alluded to????

Can't answer, but thanks for pointing out MT 20 - i notice now that the large levered weight can easily raise the small outer weight, and gravity-wise there's no asymmetry... but maybe a small displacement of a heavy weight closer in, can cause a disproportionate MoI change further out...? Prolly half-baked nonsense, ain't thought it through properly yet.. Just thinking tho, if G and M are basically constant (at our scales), but inertia squares with radius, then maybe there's a useful asymmetry there..?

[ME]

My theory is bessler is referring to himself as the injured friend....
My question is this can someone who has access to the original (German) text verify if this even makes sense in German ????
Thanks in advance.

I can't decipher his handwriting, must be a doctor-thing.
As far as I know the translation was done directly to English.
Most other inventors he refers to in other MT's needed a notification of their death. So it makes sense he refers to a (perhaps innocent) former self before he found the working principle. Such 'friend'-reference works equally well in German.

[John doe]

Thanks ME. Do you speak German ?
Glad to know my theory holds watter so far.

[ME]

Actually not really, but it's close to Dutch so I can manage with some effort plus the help of dictionaries (the oldest I've got from 1923) and online translation tools.

This is a translation attempt of something else:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6288
It's obvious one needs to understand 18ct German, and know certain events to be able to make some sense out of it (I didn't know about that copperplate for example). Some people are better equipped for this than me.

For MT020: That handwriting is gibberish in any language.
Attached a first-stage clean-up version of MT020.

(note: I write "MT020" instead of "MT 20" to enable the search tool, requiring at least 3 characters per word - as far as I know)

[Fletcher]

MT-20 was translated for John Collins by Mike Senior IIRC who has a degree in 18th C Old German.

For MT-20 the original translation in John's published MT is very similar to the later translation in the wiki (also by Mike I believe).

Also, Stewart has translated it in a past thread IINM.

[MrVibrating]

Hot off the presses:

Has the 'impossible' EM drive being tested by NASA finally been explained?

“The cone allows Unruh radiation of a certain size at the large end but only a smaller wavelength at the other end. So the inertia of photons inside the cavity must change as they bounce back and forth. And to conserve momentum, this must generate a thrust.�

Variable inertia is black magic.

It's the wildcard.

Went back to the original pendulum, crank & wheel scheme this eve, trying to find some useful inertial effects.. Nothing to report there yet, but still learning new stuff..


There's a point of fundamental theory that i've been trying to straighten out, concerning the different types of angular inertia, of which common MoI is the most basic form. No breakthroughs yet, but a problem aired...

Example 1: a mass is accelerated linearly by a scissorjack, operated via the crank of the wheel. This linear mass and jack is not mounted to or rotating with the wheel, nonetheless, the effective 'weight' you feel when turning the axle by hand, say, is a function of both linear and angular inertias combined. Although you're only applying torque, that angular force is also being split off into a linear force, so the system's net resistance to angular accelerations is actually a composite of angular and linear inertias.

Example 2: - same as before, but now suppose the wheel's own angular inertia is negligible; almost all the angular resistance to accelerations is actually linear inertia, from the jacks, and just converted to angular inertia.

Now suppose we vary the momentum / energy balance of the linearly-accelerated mass: we keep momentum (P=MV) constant, but with that given amount of P we vary its distribution of M and V...

...so, we could set up the jacks at a high leverage ratio, and accelerate a small mass to high velocity...

Or, we could use a lower gearing ratio, accelerating a larger mas to a lower top speed..

In either case, the induced momentum is the same. The effective angular inertia is the same - that is, the torque / angle / time is equal for both high and low energy states, and thus so is the RKE as would be measured from braking the wheel (such as using it to raise a weight via a pulley and rope wound around the shaft).

In both cases, you'd raise the same weight the same height, since the wheel begins at the same RPM and with the same angular inertia.

Yet on the linear side of things, it's just the net momentum that's constant - the effective 'instantaneous linear inertia' being converted to angular inertia is a function of mass and acceleration, but its energy balance is completely dependent on the two different distributions of linear M and V.

This seems to culminate in a paradox - the RKE, calculated as a product of half the effective angular inertia times angular velocity, may or may not equal the linear KE, depending on that effective angular inertia's actual distribution of linear M and V...

IOW linear and rotational KE's can be decoupled via the energy-agnosticism of a pseudo-angular inertia!

What forsaken mishcief is this?

[daanopperman]

Like I have been saying , all hell will break loose .
A wheel , a pendulum , and a crank .