Been making slow but steady progress, and just want to expend a few lines looking at potential consistencies between Bessler's clues about the exploit, and generating RKE from MoI manipulation.
The quotes here are from John Collins'
Apologia; emphases are mine.
"The internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way that weights applied in accordance with the laws of Perpetual Motion, work, once a small impressed force has caused the commencement of movement, to perpetuate the said movement and cause the rotation to continue indefinitely"
The "movement" in question is thus not necessarily a "rotation", per se, though it
causes rotation. So for instance, it could be an oscillating motion, which then drives a rotation via a crank and conrod - or any number of alternative motions. It may be that this mechanism does rotate with the wheel, or may or may not depend upon doing so. All that i deduce from this quotation is that he seems to be differentiating between the "motion" of some internal apparatus, and subsequent rotation of the wheel.
Rotation of the wheel causes this internal motion, and in response, it causes further rotation.
"a machine made up of material, therefore heavy, substances and parts, assembled in such a fashion that once it has received an externally-given motive force will never lose it but will continue endlessly without interruption to retain that motion."
..as opposed to a machine made of non-material, non-heavy substances and parts?
Why would he emphasise the obvious fact that matter possesses 'heaviness', unless this was non-trivial to the exploit? Either this is a tacit warning against trying to build with thin air, or perhaps phlogiston, or else he's drawing our attention to 'inertia'. Likely, rotational inertia. And he ends with the phrasing "retain that motion"... as if, to conserve a motion - presumably rotation - and hence a reference to what we now know as "conservation of angular momentum".. in other words, his exploit generates excess angular momentum - adding to the 'retained' motion with more of the same. Thus implying that the
form of the gain is angular momentum.
"since the motive force of the device, which at the moment is only that of a small working model, can be multiplied to an almost infinite degree through combination. Further advantage can be obtained by working the device in conjunction with ordinary machines, and altogether there is no load or burden too great for the machine to face if the working arrangements are properly set up."
This implies a stunning conclusion, that had previously escaped my notice - i had already surmised that the system of rising and falling weights was incidental to the exploit (which i believe is inertial), but here Bessler seems to be pointing out that the input and output masses don't necessarily need to be mounted onto the wheel at all - including them makes for a nicely self-contained system, but any external input and output loads can be applied to the same effect.
So the system of rising and falling masses - the GPE system - could be
any conventional machine.
Such as the stamping mill, or Archimedes screw, or winch, pendulums etc.
Remember that he also says that "in a true PM, everything must necessarily, go around together - there can be nothing involved in it that remains staionary upon the axle." But if his exploit can actually gain further advantage from
any applied loads, these external parts are obviously not rotating with the wheel... therefore we can deduce that it is only the prime mover - the mechanism responsible for generating the exploit itself - that is dependent upon rotation. If the machine is to be self contained, then it must also contain an integrated GPE system, and it then follows as a matter of course that these parts must rotate with the prime mover.
But if external loads add further advantage - ie. external GPE systems can leverage the machine's exploit - then this is fully consistent with the exploit being an RKE gain from modulating MoI; all that matters, GPE-wise, is that energy is input when MoI is higher, and then output again when MoI is lower.. and whether these GPE loads are internal or external is purely a design choice.
The context of this revelation is Bessler's reply to Wagner's point that the machine appeared to lack a "fixed point":
"The details of the application of the motive power are difficult to
fathom in this machine. Everything seems to be in motion, and
there is no "fixed point" such as one would necessarily expect to
exist where the power is applied. This ingenious arrangement
has obviously misled many people into thinking that Orffyreus'
wheel really is the true Perpetuum Mobile."
Wagner is acknowledging that the wheel appears to be statorless, and that such a feature is indeed novel, and perplexing, if not potentially misleadingly-so. And as Wagner's spitroast-inspired contraption demonstrates, a stator can be hidden internally. But to this suggestion Bessler is clearly and unequivocally refuting the use of any stator, hidden or otherwise - going on to add that the exploit actually depends upon rotation, and kind of sarcastically thanking him for tacitly acknowledging that a statorless motor must indeed be anomolous:
"Thinking, you say! You're still comparing my wheel with yours?
In a true Perpetuum Mobile everything must, necessarily, go
round together. There can be nothing involved in it which
remains stationary on the axle. From your own words, describing
my wheel, it follows that people must get used to calling it the true
Mobile. Yes, it is PERPETUAL - and you can't take your own
words back. Anyone looking into my wheel would see that the
matter is already settled. Revealed to the world would be the
artistry which Wagner himself calls the Mobile, and which is not
his to reveal."
And so, reconciling these words with his claim that externally-applied loads (and thus not rotating internally) can add further advantage, we're left to conclude that it is the central exploit that is rotation-dependent, and that it is an RKE gain mechanism, as opposed to say a GPE-varying exploit. It can be harnessed as a GPE gain, or likewise any other form of mechanical work. But gain itself is dependent upon rotation.
"But I could quote still more of his tract, for he writes at length
about such things as "perpendicular lead weights, cogwheel
drive, and eccentric cranks". And, too, about the hollow spaces
which he intends to fill with lead, in order to give his wheel a
smart momentum, so that it turns with gusto. Jump up and down
with gusto yourself, then, Wagner - then start tearing your hair
out, because you'll soon find, you splendid mechanic, that this is
a nut you can't crack! If one weight is giving an upward impetus,
another one, at the same time, is giving an equal downward one.
And as for the interior cog mechanism - that will hinder movement
rather than promote it. Oh yes, there'll be a fine clattering, but no
sustained momentum. Banging, rattling, vibrating - that's what
the wheel will be good for - and vexing you as well!
You see, your thoughts are only now tending in directions that
have been second nature to me for ages, and the amount of ink
you've spilt doesn't begin to equate to the great draughts of
knowledge I have drunk.
Wagner is still thinking in terms of GPE. Bessler however is fully aware that GPE is a zero-sum deal. His exploit is NOT gravitational. He's not lifting something when it's light and dropping it when it's heavy. His exploit isn't a form of leverage, or weight attenuation. Input and output GPE's are equal.
"For Wagner sings the praises of
weights and springs, and the sort of fly-wheels to be found in
saw-mills. (However, in Borlach's writings a contrary point of view
is expressed.) But, fly-wheels are not to be sniffed at! Though
anyone who sets about the task of bringing a Mobile to glorious
completion with such devices, is not on the right track at all. For
external wheels, weights etc. - all of this sort of stuff is not the real
thing. The wheel's own inner force must come into being without
external momentum being applied by such devices. It must,
simply put, just revolve, without being wound-up, through the
principle of "excess weight", as I describe in Part I."
So flywheels - specifically, angular momentum and inertia - are interesting, but not simply as an energy storage medium.
This "principle of excess weight" - elsewhere described as "preponderance" - cannot refer to a GPE asymmetry, as precluded previously, - so perhaps what he's really driving at is what we'd understand as "excess
torque". The "wheel's own inner force must come into being without external momentum being applied by such devices"... in other words, the exploit generates
torque. "It must, simply put, revolve" - because that's what torque does. It's not a torque applied externally, but rather one induced internally!
As by modulating MoI to induce a velocity and thus RKE rise! Reducing MoI applies positive torque.. The "
own inner force" of a
wheel is
torque, and his exploit directly induces it.
"Even according to the ideas my enemies express in their writings,
my Wheel is the true device, and is indeed, per se, a genuine
Perpetuum Mobile. None better will ever be found upon this
earth, for without the principle that I alone possess, there can be
no real perpetual motion. Whoever seeks another method is
deceiving himself, for my device does not need winding; it runs
according to "preponderance", and turns everything else along
with it; so long as its material shall endure, it will revolve of its
own accord. On one side it is heavy and full; on the other empty
and light, just as it should be. That which hitherto has been
impossible, was vouchsafed to me to discover."
"Preponderance". He's saying that this trick of inducing torque is
the only exploit possible, and that Wagner's attempted criticisms just underscore the validity of this assertion.
The "heavy / full" and "empty / light" remark is troubling - does this tally with his description of internal weights swapping between inner and outer postions? If this
is a reference to these same weights, and if GPE is, as suspected, incidental to the exploit, then this may simply be playful disingenuity - intended to confound by apparently confirming futile hypotheses re. the possibility of a gravitational asymmetry. IOW deliberately highlighting details that would be
deceptively consistent with a gravitational asymmetry, even while agreeing that such a prospect remains impossible.
So maybe these weights swapping between inner and outer positions is simply an incidental property of the internal GPE system, or else maybe it is an intrinsic action of the MoI-modulating mechanism - the core exploit, generating the excess torque.
I continue to explore both possibilities, so just wanted to post up this latest re-reading of familiar clues - as much to persuade myself, as anyone else, that i'm on the right track..
What seems clear to me now is that Bessler is at pains to describe a form of torque induction that is wholly differentiated from an externally-applied torque, such as from a drop weight, spring or flywheel etc. - he's tiptoing around torque
induction vs mere torque
application. The word "torque" wouldn't be invented for another century, but despite this i believe he's done a good job of describing its nature, and how it
is applied, as much as how it is not..
Again, if we take as read his assertion that no other exploit is possible, then the only "extraordinary thing"
left that the Toys page
could encode is RKE gain from MoI reduction. I still don't fully grasp the puzzle, but its solution seems to converge inevitably on this one consistent resolution of all of the other clues..
