Poss. Symmetry Break?

[MrVibrating]

Cheers mate, i'm just driven by what seems like the inevitability of there being only so much ground to cover, and this ongoing convergence of seemingly ever-more congruent remaining posibilities. That whatever the beasty we're tracking, we're closing in..

Your point about what to do with the negative torques is the crux of the issue. Obviously, i was hoping this would tie in with the requirement for vertical rotation, with gravity somehow taking up the slack. So far, that's eluded me due to the usual gravitational symmetry - what it gives one side of the wheel, it takes away from the other.. but it's still early days.

Initially, when separating out +/- inertial torques first occurred to me, the immediate solution seemed to be sinking the two torques into different-sized inertias - basically applying the lesson of the previous 'discs'' experiments - to try and yield an asymmetric distribution of CW to CCW RKE, if not angular momentum. I still haven't wrapped up that particular line of enquiry, might yet be worth nailing down..

Right now though i've been trying to eliminate underbalance from a retracted MoI, by getting rid of all balance as a compromise (since the ideal solution, of overbalance from a retracted MoI, seems impossible).

Instead of using four scissorjacks as originally planned, i found the concept simplified into two diametric beams, replacing the jacks with pulleys:





The two beams freely rotate independently of one another and the wheel, and the green beam collides with the wheel's rim stops while the red beam just decelerates. The contraposed inbound vs outbound weights are synced by an additional pair of pulleys, so it's using 6 in total.

Which is slightly dodgy, as WM2D hates pulleys, and loves creating energy from them, hence my initial preference for scissorjacks.. however there's an eventual trade off of complexity with multiple jacks. Besides which the relative pros and cons are all academic unless i can find something productive to do with the negative torque..

[Fletcher]

Which is slightly dodgy, as WM2D hates pulleys, and loves creating energy from them, ...

hence my initial preference for scissorjacks.. however there's an eventual trade off of complexity with multiple jacks.

In the past I've often used pulley systems - if they are for just one direction a single pulley is fine - if two direction pull is required I would add a reverse pulley system (to close the loop so to speak).

And then I'd often run into problems as you describe forcing me to look at mechanical linkages etc.

One way around the problem (of low tolerances) was to include a stiff spring in the pulley line - allows for some give and take in the pulley system not there in a straight pulley arrangement - but it slows the computations down somewhat - trade-offs.

[MrVibrating]

...just remembered there's an even simpler way of implementing coordinated radial translations, by employing radially-folding planar linkages:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewN4sSUaEXc

..so it should be possible to synch a mutually-alternating pair of inny to outy rotary jacks rotating independently on the same axis.

WM should find that less problematic than interlinked pulleys, and it reduces the part count of multiple independent jacks.

Still, it's all for nothing unless there's some way of applying gravity to generate a torque asymmetry.


There has to be.. Bessler's already told us that the "weights gravitate to the center then climb back up" - so he's directly implicated gravity, what it does, and what is done to it. Gravity pulls 'em down, and "climbing back up" implies that they're doing so under their own induced inertia or momentum, rather than some externally-applied impetus.

So somehow, that description has to gel with something to do with how to yield a non-zero sum of positive to negative MoI-induced torques.

Gravitating to the center is obviously inducing positive torque, and implies gravity is sufficient to overcome CF and cause an angular acceleration due to a decreasing MoI.

Obviously, gravity can't do that if lowering one weight causes an opposing lift, as the previous counterbalanced concept applied. So that must be a wrong turn - the arms need to remain independently articulated, and opposing arms can't be replaced with a single diametric beam.

Similarly, if an orbiting weight is climbing upwards from the center, then it is climbing against gravity, converting RKE (or something) into GPE.

So the weight was driven inwards by gravity, conservation of angular momentum at this reduced radius causes angular acceleration, directly converting input GPE into output RKE... and then, some devious trick must be employed in order to eject the KE-boosted weight back upwards again, presumably with a GPE gain..? So then, bashically, the exploit would involve converting a boosted angular velocity into a linear ballistic one..

That can't be a closed loop, i'm evidently missing something.. but there's one here somewhere, dagnamit..

[MrVibrating]

Which is slightly dodgy, as WM2D hates pulleys, and loves creating energy from them, ...

hence my initial preference for scissorjacks.. however there's an eventual trade off of complexity with multiple jacks.

In the past I've often used pulley systems - if they are for just one direction a single pulley is fine - if two direction pull is required I would add a reverse pulley system (to close the loop so to speak).

And then I'd often run into problems as you describe forcing me to look at mechanical linkages etc.

One way around the problem (of low tolerances) was to include a stiff spring in the pulley line - allows for some give and take in the pulley system not there in a straight pulley arrangement - but it slows the computations down somewhat - trade-offs.

Wow yeah the springs idea - i can see how that would help smooth over the conflicting floating points or whatever it trips up on.

So that's potentially a useful quick'n'dirty alternative to radially-folding linkages.

LOL it's just occurred to me what a house of cards MT 39 would be in WM..

[MrVibrating]

...so.. hang on a sec..

..why can't we just drop a weight towards the center, exploiting CoM to boost its KE, and then simply fling it back up from the center, independently of the wheel, and hence not decelerating it?

This would mean the weights get some air for at least part of their cycle - which would explain Bessler's concerns about it being shoved out of balance, and also perhaps why he never proposes its use for mobile applications such as vehicular power.


Could it be that simple? Use gravity to overcome sufficiently-mild CF, reducing the MoI and so accelerating the rotation, and then throw the weight upwards directly from the center...?

This would also be consistent with Bessler's reticence to be drawn into elaborating on "how quickly the weights rise upwards", what with how our minds aren't ready to contemplate such matters, and all.. I'd previously overlooked the implications of this clue, based on the assumption that if the asymmetry were gravitational, rate of ascent or descent has no bearing on GPE, hence such a detail would be irrelevant.

If however the asymmetry is at least in part inertial, then this does provide a context for speed dependence..

This all seems to resolve nicely.. if the weight is ejected upwards from the axle then it imparts no direct torque or counter-torque when hitting the 'eject' button. The wheel isn't noticably slowed down or speeded up by its departure.

If this is correct, then there is no negative torque from increasing MoI to be dealt with in the first place... :|

[MrVibrating]

If the spring Bessler was heard to push down on when re-seating the weights in the Weisenstien demo was located in the bottom of the wheel, out by the rim, then it must've been preloaded with compression, pushing upwards and inwards, against gravity and/or CF.

If however it was located within the axle, and again, under compression, then it is pushing with CF and either with or against gravity.


No idea if this piece fits here, or elsewhere in the jigsaw, but it looks like a potential match..

[MrVibrating]

Jusst some thinking aloud here, cross-checking my predicates...

The description Bessler gives of weights gravitating to the center then climbing back up seems tricky to reconcile with the one-directional wheels.

This is because the one-directional wheels were under static torque when stopped. In a statorless wheel, it seems that static torque can only be applied by an OB mass, which is able to get lower by causing the wheel's rotation.

Hence, in such a scenario, the weight cannot be gravitating to the center of rotation.

The only other 'center' it might be described as gravitating to would be the bottom dead center, or BDC position.


This same point would likely apply as much to the bi-directional wheels, although they lacked such static torque.


So the difference between these two alternate interpretations of "center" is the difference between an inner or outer position.

I'd hitherto assumed that the weights must gravitate to the center of rotation, which is problematic for this scheme, since the gain mechanism acts upon angular momentum, which must therefore already exist when gravity is then applied to close its MoI, causing its acceleration.

So, if the input GPE has to both accelerate the wheel, while also gravitating to the center of rotation and thus reducing the MoI, the best we could hope for is that half our input GPE goes to RKE via OB, while the other half goes to acceleration of that input RKE via MoI reduction... net result is still a perfect conversion of GPE to RKE, at best.

Therefore we can deduce that the input GPE, the mass gravitating to the center, which, in the one-directional wheels at least, must begin its descent from an OB position, and can only be gravitating to the BDC, must, therefore, either be acting to increase the MoI, or else have no effect at all on MoI, merely converting GPE to RKE via OB.

It cannot however be performing work to decrease the MoI, while also converting GPE to RKE via OB! It's a collision of interests, conflicting requirements, so one or the other.

This in turn would imply that the weight only needs "climb back up" to its initial OB position. It doesn't mean that the weights might not have been raised all the way to TDC either, but at the very least it necessitates that they're returned to their initial drop point, however high up on the wheel that may be.

So if the gravitating weight follows an optimal circular trajectory down to BDC, its MoI is constant.

So something else must be responsible for reducing the MoI, either once the weight reaches BDC, or else, while it's still falling.

Likewise, is MoI is being reduced when the weights climb back up then?

If the weights "climb" back up, rather than being lifted, they don't have the KE or momentum for that upon arrival at BDC.

So there's a potential clash of interpretations here. I think the resolution is that, as mentioned previously, Bessler is usually talking about the prime mover when he describes clues about the causative principle.

While it's always possible that he could answer disingenuously, and mislead us to confuse references to the outer assembly of OB weights with the inner prime mover, i don't believe he would do that - he's an honest man who enjoys his puzzles, so all his answers must be self consistent, with the truth.

He also makes various remarks that seem to differentiate the prime mover from the peripheral mechanisms it powers, such as when he says "All of the internal parts, and the perpetual motion structures, retain the power of free movement, as I've been saying since 1712."

So this helps clarify my focus...


So the basic system to build up from begins with an OB weight, suspended out at say 90°. It's going to drop from there to BDC, and upon arrival it has to have caused the "perpetual motion structures" to engage, and, presumably, start making energy. But the weight itself is just going to follow an ordinary circular trajectory downwards, not attempting anything funky. It's just a GPE input.

We know that the form of work the OB weight caused was to rotate the whole system, so this must be what engages the "PM structures".

Either something is thus knocked out of balance by the rotation - which would ultimately imply that it was just more stored GPE - or else, much more likely (and interesting) is the possibility that the prime mover depends upon momentum induction.

You have to actually have some momentum, before you can start manipulating it.

Aside from momentum, is the reciprocal force manifested in the form of inertia - perhaps it's this instead that is the desired currency to be converted from the GPE input? However this can be ruled out, since energy is directly apportioned as a function of instantaneous inertia - therefore, modulating MoI while inputting momentum is object defeating and wasteful - ideally, we'd want to input all of our momentum first, before acting to reduce its inertia and so boost its velocity and KE.

So the first requirement of the prime mover is momentum induction, catered for by the separate GPE input. Overbalanced, the system rotates, and the prime mover is endowed with momentum; its currency, and game of choice..

So, if its first requirement is to manifest momentum, then by definition it either needs to be big, or heavy, or both.

However, we also know that the only way to convert inertia to velocity is to get smaller.

Therefore the amount of "getting smaller" available is a premium margin. The smaller the inertia of our invested momentum gets, the more its energy value inflates.

However, reducing MoI usually costs energy, so this next step must be critical - if there's no other energy source available, such as a further GPE input, then the only means to effect an MoI reduction is to have an additional store of PE on-board the rotating system..

So it can be deduced that this must've been the purpose of the spring Bessler admitted was used, and was witnessed to have likely pre-loaded when re-assembling the transolcated wheel on new support posts..



Continuing this line of reasoning later..

[MrVibrating]

So really, the game begins like this:

- We have some angular momentum, invested in something that can get smaller, but, ordinarily at least, should not want to, and some PE in a spring... plus a weight that needs re-lifting.

From these basic ingredients, Bessler somehow cooked up a positive closed feedback loop.

So, coming back to the "weights gravitate to the center" clue, this must pertain to the prime mover, not the GPE overheads which are almost irrelevant to the real issue..

Without some contribution from gravity in closing the MoI - if we rely on sprung PE alone - we'll never be able to reset the springs by re-extending the MoI, much less if the net system should accelerate..

So it must be the "prime mover", or at least part of it, that "gravitates to the center".

So a quick note on the practicalities of this, and why a spring might assist:

- Gravitating downwards against CF is mucky - the practicalities of doing so passively all but wipe out the potential for angular acceleration, defeating the purpose.

- However, consider this; GPE is not speed-dependent! This means that if we input work, to actively, rather than passively, and thus very rapidly draw a mass inwards from, say, around the TDC position, then we still harness that full available GPE... it gets converted directly into RKE, along with the sprung PE we added.


So to put it another way, this hypothesis predicts a testable result; that a rotating mass drawn inwards and downwards rapidly, will contribute that available GPE to RKE, and conversely, equally more or less RKE will be lost when thrusting outwards and downwards vs outwards and upwards.

So the bottom line so far is that the most likely purpose of an on-board source of sprung PE is to force an unnatural interaction, of gravity's downwards force, versus CF's outwards and upwards force.

Such an interaction is passively self-limiting, so it's not an everyday situation - this is a forced exchange, something that can only occur with an input of energy, and its ultimate efficiency is speed-dependent - in order to have apprecaible CF, you want to be going as fast as possible, at as wide a radius as possible, which means in order to harvest the maximum GPE, the MoI retraction would need to snap downwards very rapidly - and forcefully - indeed..

As previously noted, it also requires that the retracting and extending masses are not equally opposing - if the inbound mass is counter-balanced then as much mass is rising below the axle, as descending above it, and no net GPE is input, no matter how fast the mass is retracted.

At this stage i'm wondering if i haven't ploughed right through the buffers already - on the one hand, this reasoning would give consistent utility to scissorjacks, their linear speed being a defining property, and it's a mechanically-tricky manoeuvre, which might be consistent with it being a little-explored corner, as well as a phenomenon unlikely to arise without purposeful intent.. Yet it's also getting challenging... perhaps this is a good sign, i don't know..

Then again, maybe a GPE input plus a sprung-PE MoI reduction is already OU, in principle, and i'm just getting sidetracked by minor details... (my defining property, ahem..)

Whatever, for now i think i'm clearer that what i was doing yesterday was confusing the peripheral GPE system with the prime mover principle.

I doubt GPE + a sprung MoI reduction could be enough for OU, but this seems like the most consistent avenue of investigation that all the evidence converges towards..

[jim_mich]

Bessler's already told us that the "weights gravitate to the center then climb back up"

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you. Those words that you quote, though written by Bessler, were describing Wagner's concept of Bessler's wheel. Wagner's concept of Bessler's wheel was of weights rising and falling. In other words a gravity-wheel. Bessler called Wagner a lying ass for proposing that such was Bessler's work.

[MrVibrating]

LOL if you're right then i've wasted days of effort trying to resolve that clue with this principle...

[Fcdriver]

...just remembered there's an even simpler way of implementing coordinated radial translations, by employing radially-folding planar linkages:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewN4sSUaEXc

..so it should be possible to synch a mutually-alternating pair of inny to outy rotary jacks rotating independently on the same axis.

WM should find that less problematic than interlinked pulleys, and it reduces the part count of multiple independent jacks.

Still, it's all for nothing unless there's some way of applying gravity to generate a torque asymmetry.


There has to be.. Bessler's already told us that the "weights gravitate to the center then climb back up" - so he's directly implicated gravity, what it does, and what is done to it. Gravity pulls 'em down, and "climbing back up" implies that they're doing so under their own induced inertia or momentum, rather than some externally-applied impetus.

So somehow, that description has to gel with something to do with how to yield a non-zero sum of positive to negative MoI-induced torques.

Gravitating to the center is obviously inducing positive torque, and implies gravity is sufficient to overcome CF and cause an angular acceleration due to a decreasing MoI.

Obviously, gravity can't do that if lowering one weight causes an opposing lift, as the previous counterbalanced concept applied. So that must be a wrong turn - the arms need to remain independently articulated, and opposing arms can't be replaced with a single diametric beam.

Similarly, if an orbiting weight is climbing upwards from the center, then it is climbing against gravity, converting RKE (or something) into GPE.

So the weight was driven inwards by gravity, conservation of angular momentum at this reduced radius causes angular acceleration, directly converting input GPE into output RKE... and then, some devious trick must be employed in order to eject the KE-boosted weight back upwards again, presumably with a GPE gain..? So then, bashically, the exploit would involve converting a boosted angular velocity into a linear ballistic one..

That can't be a closed loop, i'm evidently missing something.. but there's one here somewhere, dagnamit..

Why not shift the center pivot instead of the outer pivot? What happens if you. Make make the center pivot a oval, and allow the arms to move indepentant of each other?

[MrVibrating]

OK i'm back on page 291 of JC's AP, with the full quote as follows:

Are there any more doubting lions roaring around? Then let them
come and sit down by me, and my wheel shall openly revolve for
them. I've nothing to hide, for all the inmost parts, and the
perpetual-motion structures, retain the power of free movement,
as I've been saying since 1712. I'd like, at this point, to give a
brief description of it. So then, a work of this kind of
craftsmanship has, as its basis of motion, many separate pieces
of lead. These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up
an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle.
Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing
places all the time. (This principle is in fact the one that Wagner
said he owed to me - but I was quite wrongly implicated, as I'd
never informed anyone about the matter.) At present, as far as
I'm concerned, anyone who wants can go on about the wonderful
doings of these weights, alternately gravitating to the centre and
climbing back up again, for I can't put the matter more clearly.

But I would just like to add this friendly little note of caution:- A
great craftsman would be that man who can "lightly" cause a
heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise
as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort
that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his
hard work shall be all in vain. He can rack his brains and work his
fingers to the bones with all sorts of ingenious ideas about adding
extra weights here and there. The only result will be that his
wheel will get heavier and heavier - it would run longer if it were
empty! Have you ever seen a crowd of starlings squabbling
angrily over the crumbs on a stationary mill-wheel? That's what it
would be like for such a fellow and his invention, as I know only
too well from my own recent experience!

I also think it's a good thing to be completely clear about one
further point. Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can
arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the
centre than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few
years ago I learned all about this the hard way. And then the
truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn
through bitter experience. There's a lot more to matters of
mechanics than I've revealed to date, but since there's no urgent
need involved, I'll refrain from giving more information at the
moment.

...so this one page is the go-to source for gauging the consistency of any particular theory, and misinterpretations here could completely derail an otherwise promising hypothesis, as much as seem to confirm an invalid one.

I do agree with your interpretation that the quip about a "great craftsman" raising a heavy weight with a light one is a scornful dismissal of any notion of a gravitational asymmetry, rather than a description of his own work.

However in the passage you mention, he's explicitly describing the properties of his own wheel - the whole point of this passage is to flash an ankle, to offer encouragement without giving away the keys to the safe, so any viable solution must be consistent with these clues here.

Later in AP he points us back to this passage if we have any further questions about his principle - this is "where we should look for the kind of excess impetus" his wheels employed.

So, Bessler is describing how his weights come in pairs, alternating between inner and outer positions.

This, in the first instance, i think we can agree, is an honest and objective description of one aspect of his causative principle. Whatever the weights' actual trajectories, and how they move between these two positions, alternating between them must be a necessary, if not sufficient, requirement for OU.

And it is here that Bessler notes, in parentheses, that Wagner has falsely attributed this "principle" to him, even though he'd never disclosed it previously.

The only "principle" described in the preceding sentence is weights alternating inner / outer positions. No suggestion of why they do this, or what benefit it might accord, has been mentioned, so the context of the "principle" in question is simply the alternating relative weight positions, and nothing else.

In the next sentence, Bessler is dismissing the value of Wagner's commentary in this particular respect, acknowledging that he's actually, if inadvertently, got one superficial detail correct, albeit for reasons he doesn't comprehend, and he's simply kicking it away as a potentially misleading triviality.

He's set out on this page to give an honest, if tantalising, hint, reavealing something critical - some defining property - of his exploit. This is one of his contingencies to the IP and potential posthumous validation, so he's not going to be too cavalier with the pertinent facts here.

My reading is that Wagner assumed a vertical wheel implied that the supposed exploit was a gravitational asymmetry. The outwards consistency with general expectations with what a "gravity mill" might look like - its vertical orientation, and especially statorless design - led Wagner to conclude that the hoax was deliberately designed to appear consistent with such ill-informed conceptions. Thus refuting Bessler's claims and proving the fraud was as simple as clarifying the symmetry of input to output GPE workloads.

And this is the general view that persists today. Stick a camera in Michio Kaku or Brian Cox's face and ask them if a Bessler wheel could work, and they'll witheringly explain that asymmetric gravitational interactions are mathematically impossible, end of conversation.

So Bessler's simply saying "sure, mine does that" - but that it's incidental, and not for the reasons presumed. "You can have that", he's saying "but good luck finding much use from it".


He's saying "since you mention it, they actually do gravitate to the center then climb back up... just not for the reasons you're thinking". The closing phrase "for i can't put the matter more clearly", i read as "but i've already said too much" - ie. further elaboration would mean explicitly delineating inertial from gravitational torques - a theme developed consistently in MT, while here, he's trying to avoid putting all the necessary clues together in one place; it's a teaser, not full disclosure, after all..


I'd almost prefer that you were right, Jim, as it would remove the apparent clash with the static overbalance of the one-way wheels. Not to mention the walls of text above trying to reconcile the two. But as noted, the simplest resolution there is that the "weights gravitating to the center and climbing back up" quote refers to the "prime mover", which the system of overbalancing weights was separate to, if dependent upon for its energy asymmetry.

So my conclusion is that, given he's admitting his principle employs paired weights swapping inner / outer positions, he's simply further acknowledging that they even gravitate to the center, and climb back up. Wagner stumbled inadvertently across a crumb of truth, and in recognition, Bessler throws him - and us - another crumb, confident that we'll not yet make a meal of it. The whole passage is about playfully acknowledging the superficial consistencies with ill-concieved notions of gravity wheels, actually playing into the conceptual smoke screen it provides, while still providing useful information to anyone who can see through it, and the alternative path it implies..

[MrVibrating]

Why not shift the center pivot instead of the outer pivot? What happens if you. Make make the center pivot a oval, and allow the arms to move indepentant of each other?

By "center pivot" you mean the system's main axis of rotation? Could add an interesting dynamic. Dunno.

All i know is, pulling an orbiting mass inwards causes positive torque, and feeding it back out causes an equal opposite negative torque.

I'm currently trying to find potential methods for limiting that deceleration of the RPM when a radially-sliding mass moves outwards. As orbital path gets longer with radius, the mass would need to accelerate to maintain RPM at ever-wider orbit, and so its inertial resistance to that angular acceleration applies a brake to the net system.

So one idea i've been considering is to send the mass back outwards and upwards, after gravitating in towards the axle, by chucking it upwards in a straight line, without interacting with the wheel at all on its way out.

This way, we'd get the weight back up to its initial height without slowing the wheel down, and could presumably further increase the wheel's speed by repeating this cheap trick.

Such an exploit would depend upon some kind of scaling divergence between RKE as a function of MoI to RPM, and GPE as a function of change in height. IOW we'd need to gain more RKE from the MoI to RPM conversion than we lost in propelling the weight back up and out from the axle.

On the surface it looks promising because we can exert negligible positive or negative reaction torque against the wheel by propelling it upwards from the axle instead - essentially using the earth as reaction mass, instead of the wheel's angular momentum, which will be neither slowed nor accelerated by the weight's departure..

Otherwise, if we propelled the mass back upwards from the descending side of the wheel, while we'd be adding positive torque to it, we'd also be kicking the ground out from under the mass trying to push up off of it, defeating the objective of recovering our initial height. Similarly, if we send it back up from the ascending side of the wheel, we instead get a boosted GPE at the expense of converted RKE.

Whereas leaving from the axle, we avoid changing the wheel's energy state during the reset. And because RKE scales as MoI times half the ssquare of RPM, as RPM's build over successive cycles, output RKE rises exponentially, while input GPE remains a linear function of GMH.

So, these are the kinds of things i'm thinking about... there's a degree of "suck it and see", but hopefully, guided by reasoned objectives. Any putative asymmetry can be tackled from either end - trying to leverage a boosted output integral, or an attenuated input integral, but we don't yet know what Bessler's asymmetry was...

After initially wholly rejecting the prospect of any gravitational asymmetry, i'm now seriously considering that the amount of work performed by GPE in a given cycle can have two different and irreconcilable functions - conventional GMH, but also in terms of boosted RKE from a gravity-assisted MoI variation.

This would complicate the usual linear relationship between energy and height. Normally, if MoI is constant, then RKE is a direct 1:1 conversion of GMH. If GMH is also varying MoI however, then RKE is a cross product of the two workloads and their respective scaling dimensions. Perhaps GPE converted to RKE via MoI reduction, as opposed to OB, could continue inducing consistent changes in momentum for a given GMH, across a rising RPM range...

As with ejecting from the axle and so circumventing the negative torque associated with incresing the MoI, an exploit like this would essentially be violating Newton's 3rd law, accumulating momentum at a linear rate of input energy, and thus a non-linearly evolving net total.

So something like this would be bending N3 to force a constant GMH to convert to different running totals of output energy - for instance, if it costs 1 Joule to accelerate 2 kg of rotating mass from a standing start up to 1 meter a second, but still only costs the same rate of 1 J / 2 kg / m / s when rising from say 10 to 11 m/s, then that one Joule of GPE is able to raise the wheel's energy by 20 J. This totally unintuitive outcome is the inescapable result of the diverging scaling dimensions of momentum and KE when N3 symmetry is effectively circumvented.


So i'm purposefully tracking a classical symmetry break, rather than just investigating interesting wobbles. There's method to the madness. Meandering and verbose, but, hopefully, following a converging and ever-diminishing trail of possibilities..

[MrVibrating]

Here's the cincher - the amount of energy it costs to send a mass back upwards from the axle directly - ballistically, without interacting at all with the rest of the wheel on the way back up - is speed-invariant.


Think about that for a second - if we're pushing down on the axle - and thus, Earth - rather than the ascending or descending side of the wheel, when kicking the mass back upwards, then the actual velocity of the wheel around it is irrelevant.

When a weight is drawn all the way into the center, it's orbital velocity is completely subsumed into an angular velocity - from any static reference point around the perimeter, such as say the 12 o' clock TDC position, the axially-spinning weight in the dead center of the wheel's axis of rotation below, has zero linear velocity... it's just sitting there, spinning but going nowhere.

If we drew it back out radially while in contact with the wheel, it'll convert its axial angular momentum back into orbital angular momentum, slowing down the wheel in the process.

But if we propel it straight upwards from the axle without touching the wheel, then the wheel itself isn't decelerated by that return conversion of axial to orbital momentum, since it never occurs.

If the means by which the applied GPE induces angular momentum is also speed invariant, then we can indeed keep purchasing angular momentum at a consistent, instead of accumulating, cost - the effective RKE conversion value of a given conserved GPE becomes an increasing function of the linearly-rising angular momentum.


Bessler says that in a true PM, everything must, of necessity, go around together, and also that the form of torque - the type of excess impetus - must come from within, as if induced. So these 'statorless' requirements are consistent with this prospective form of energy asymmetry.

This in turn implies that the cost of MoI reduction is speed-invariant. The cost of moving the masses in and out is at least partly decoupled from the usual constraints of rising CF with RPM etc., so a given input GPE can cause the same or similar magnitude of MoI variation regardless of net angular velocity.

I suspect MT 143, and whatever principle the Roberval embodies, might provide just the sort of counterbalancing against CF that would be required.

The thing is, the internal, shifting, mechanism needs to be insulated or counterbalanced against the rising inertial forces, while still allowing them to apply to the net system, as they inevitably must, if trading MoI for RPM.

So the system accelerates because its MoI has been reduced, by a drop weight gravitating to the center, which then exits ballistically by pushing down vertically upon the axle, and so returning to TDC without further torquing the wheel in either direction, neither by balance, reactive displacement nor induction via CoM due to MoI variation.

When we kick the weight back up, the actual MoI has changed, of course, yet without changing the angular velocity of the wheel below.. and the remaining angular momentum can be successively built up over further cycles, and hence farming its exponentially-accumulating RKE value.

[jim_mich]

MrV, I didn't want to mess up your thread, so my previous post was deliberately short and truncated. The following is a much more robust reply...

Bessler's already told us that the "weights gravitate to the center then climb back up"

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you. Those words that you quote, though written by Bessler, were describing Wagner's concept of Bessler's wheel.

John Collin's translation (AP, part two, chapter 42) is not quite correct.

From JC's AP translation, part two, chapter 42 ...

XVII (b) References to various points in the Merseburg tract

Wagner now begins to pick through every little detail of our description, and ridicules the great patron who speaks in favour of my machine, but little does he (the Patron) care, for all of us already know well enough what lying edifices he builds, and what a stinking scumbag he is, who wallows in his own filth. Leave great men unmolested, Wagner, you foul, odorous, pig, if you wish ever to be free of disgrace! My Patron is an honourable friend, who means well to all men, but he will personally take his revenge on you, and I shall not want to be involved.

Wagner describes how he thinks my machine is constructed; he babbles about "excess weights" being snatched along, by means of "internal motive power", in a frequently-repeated cycle of up and down movements. According to him, Nature dictates that things gravitate downwards. But the weights which rest below must, in a flash, be raised upwards, and it is this that Wagner cannot force himself to accept. But, crazy Wagner, just note that that is indeed the case with my device. But if anyone should presume to say that my Wheel is definitely such-and-such without having seen it, he is a fool and a fantasizer of the first order. He deserves to have a donkey's tail affixed to his lying rump.

Code: Select all

XVII.s.
Und weil der Wagner nun beschreib’t,              |And because the Wagner now describes,
Wie’s Mobile sein sol’ beschaffen,                |How his mobile be so designed
Wie überwucht sich müss’ auffraffen,              |How unbalance themselves must rise_up
Bei inn’rer Krafft und Bewegung                   |with internal force and motion
In manchem Fall-und Steigungs-Sprung,             |In many drop and upward_slope jump,
Wie die Natur nach allen Regeln                   |As to nature according all rules
Stets contra aufwerts müsse seegeln,              |Always counter upward must sail,
Und welch’ Gewichte unten ruh’n,                  |And what weights down find rest
Die müsten nauff in einem Nun; x.                 |which must continue_up in one now;
Daß aber dieses solt’ angehen,                    |that but this should address,
Wil Wagners Glaube nicht gestehen.                |Will Wagner faith not confess.

Wolan, du wilder Wagner, merk’;                   |Well_now, you wild Wagner, feel;
So, und nicht anders, ist mein Werk. x.           |Such, and not otherwise, is my work. x.

Thätst du schlecht hin in Zweiffel grübeln,       |Thät is you wickedly toward in doubt ponder
So wolte ich dir’s nicht verübeln;                |So wanted I thee not blame;
Das Zweiffeln stehet jedem frei,                  |The doubt stands each free
Was er nicht weiß, ob’s auch wahr sei.            |What he not uncolored, whether_it true is.

183 (40)
Daß aber einer wolte sagen:                       |That but one wanted say:
(Mit Schimpff um sich wie Wagner schlagen),       |(With shame for himself how Wagner smite)
So und so, wär’ gewiß mein Rad,                   |So and so, was certain my wheel,
Das er doch nicht gesehen hat;                    |that he yet not seen has;
Das ist ein Narr und Erz-Phantaste;               |That is a fool and ore-fantasy;
Verdienet eine Esels-Quaste,                      |Deserves an ass-tassel,
Und auf den losen Lügen-Rumpff                    |Also to the loose Lying Rump
Den wohl-verdienten Schel - Trumpff. x. NB.       |The well-earned ring - Trump.

Wolan/wohlan = well, come, well_then, very_well, well_now, come_now, come_on, in_other_words
merk/merken = remember, notice, know, realize, feel, mark

Note that when properly translated, Bessler does not write that such is the case with his own wheel, but rather that Wagner feels (notes) that such (weights rising and falling) is the case, and not something different.

Continuing on in Chapter 42...

Code: Select all

 Original German (From John Collin's AP)          | Translated into English by Jim_Mich
--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------
           XLIII.                                 |     Chapter 43 (of Part One Proper)
Wil sonst ein Zweiffel-Löwe brüllen?    (Zweifel) |Will otherwise a doubt-lion roar?
Der mache mir erst meinen Willen;                 |Which make me first guess intent;
Alsdann so sitze er dabei;                        |Then so sit he there;
 Das Werk sol lauffen ohne Scheu.   (soll laufen) |The work shall run without fear.
Denn alle innere Figuren,                         |Because all inner parts,
Perpetuirliche Structuren,                        |perpetual-like structure,
Behalten ihre freie Jagt,                         |Keep their free hunt,
Wie Anno 12 ich schon gesagt;                     |Like year 1712 I already said;
Wil’s auch noch hier, zwar kurz beschreiben:      |Will as also yet here, though briefly describe:
Nemlich, ein Kunstwerk muß sich treiben           |Namely, a craft-work must itself drive
Von vielen sondern Stücken Bleu;           (Blei) |from many separate pieces lead;
Der sind nun immer zwey und zwey; (zwei und zwei) |which are now always two and two;
Nimmt ein Ding äußerlich die Stelle,              |change a thing outward the position,
So Fährt das andre an die Welle;                  |such drives the other to the shaft;
Dies ist bald hier, und jenes dort:               |this is soon here and that there:
Und also wechselt’s fort und fort. x              |and also swaps forth and forth.

(Und dies Principium ist’s eben,                  |(and this Principle it's precisely,
Darum mir Wagner Schuld gegeben,                  |why me Wagner blame given
Und ganz unwahr auf mich gebracht,                |and whole untruth on me brought,
Ich hätt’s niemanden weisgemacht).                |I would it nobody point_made).

                                                  :
Zur Zeit mag noch ein jedes rahten,       (raten) |For now like yet one each guess
Durch was für wunderbare Thaten                   |by what kind_of wonderful action/doings
Dies’ Schwere nach dem Centro kehrt,              |This weight to the Center returns,
Und jene in die höhe fährt. x                     |and that to the extent/height drives.
Denn deutscher darff ich hier nicht reden,        |because German may I here not talk,
Noch öffnen alle Fenster-Laden;                   |else open all window-shutters;

Doch wil freundwillig ongefähr         (ungefähr) |However will friend-willingly about
Dies Nota Bene noch setzen her:                   |This take notice more set here:

Der wird ein großer Künstler heißen,              |He would a great artist be_called,
Wer ein schwer Ding leicht hoch kann schmeißen,   |Who a heavy thing lightly high can throw,
Und wenn ein Pfund ein Viertel fällt,             |And when a pound a quarter falls,
Es vier Pfund hoch vier Viertel schnellt. x       |it four pounds high four quarters shoots_up.

Wer dieses aus kann spekuliren,                   |Anybody this from can speculate,
Wird bald den Lauf perpetuiren;                   |would soon the running perpetuate;
Wer aber dieses noch nicht weiß,                  |Anybody however this still not know;
Da ist vergebens aller Fleiß;                     |then is in vain all hard_work;

Man tue, denke, sinne, dichte                     |Man/You/(Wagner) do, suppose, mean, dictate/write
Gleich schon auf noch so viel Gewichte;           |same already towards yet so many weights;
Sein Ding davon vielmehr wird schwer,             |His thing thereof rather is heavy,
Und lief’ viel länger, da es leer;                |And run much longer, were it empty;
Ja, es geh’t solchen seinem Dinge,                |Yes, it goes such his things,
Als ob gleich noch so viel’ Sperlinge             |as if equal to so much sparrows
Sich greulich bissen um und um                    |themselves dreadfully bite round and round
Auf einem stillen Mühlrad rum;                    |On a still mill-wheel run;
Wie ich unlängst nur wahr genommen,               |as I recently truthfully observed,
Als ich zu solchem Streit gekommen. x             |when I to such quarrel come.

Nun die Nachricht (deucht mich) ist gut,          |Now the message (thinks me) is good,
Dem, der sie fein einfassen thut;                 |To_him, who they good/fine a_grasp do;
Denn manche Möb’lemacher denken,                  |because some Mobile-makers think
Wenn ihre Sachen sich nur lenken,                 |when their stuff themselves just guide
Heraus ein wenig weiter hier                      |Out a little further here
Als dort – o! so wird’s lauffen schier;           |as there - oh! so wouldst run purely;
Ich habe dieses selbst erfahren                   |I have this even learned
Mit lauter Müh’ vor vielen Jahren,                |with nothing_but toil prior many years,
Bis mich das wahre Sprichwort schlug:             |to me the true proverb suggest:
Ein jeder wird mit Schaden klug. x                |One each would with loss (get) smart.
      Means: That one has to learn through bitter experience.

Drum steckt im mechanischen Grunde      (Darum)   |That's_why stuck in mechanical basis/rationale
Noch viel verborgen diese Stunde;                 |Still much hidden this hour;
Doch weil mich keine Noht hier treibt,    (Not)   |But because me no need here push, 
Von mir mehr Nachricht unterbleibt.               |From me more message omitted.

Wagner's concept of Bessler's wheel was weights moving up and down and up and down. Thus Wagner's wheel was a gravity-wheel.

Bessler describes his wheel as having weights that move in and out and in and out. Thus Bessler's wheel was a motion-wheel.

I know this is really difficult for some people to comprehend that there is a difference. Some seem to equate in and out with being the same as up and down. Obviously, in both cases, the weight move toward the center then back out toward the rim. Initially Bessler used two weights, whose motions were couple to each other. Bessler energy-gaining principle only requires two weights. And any wheel built with mechanisms using only two weights will have dead spots and OOB spots, depending upon where the wheel is stopped at. The Bessler' principle was such that when stopped in its OOB position, then let go, it gained enough oomph during its very first motions that it drove the wheel past the dead spots and the wheel took off running.

Bessler's two-way wheels used two such drive-units, which he paired together so as to make them always balanced. When rotated forward they gained oomph and pushed the wheel rotation. When rotated in reverse, they lost oomph, and the weights stopped their motions within the wheel, and thus the wheel coasted in reverse. Bessler added a second reversed set of mechanisms, and the wheel then functioned either direction.

MrV, you write much about "symmetry break". Bessler's principle, involving in and out movements of weights, gains it motive power from a very pronounced symmetry break. And at this point I must stick a plug into my mouth, and slap my typing finger, else I will end up squandering away IP rights worth billion$. The symmetry break is very real. Once the concept is known, it is like a 12 foot plank across a 10 foot creek.

All of Bessler's wheels used the same principle, whereby the motions of weights caused the weights to gain kinetic (motion) energy. Is this not what all PM seekers are seeking?

PS. I hope the length of this post and my comments are not objectionable.