Poss. Symmetry Break?

[MrVibrating]

Fundamentally, a vertical wheel wants to drop its OB mass, and also maximise its MoI.

These must be the two equilibrium states we need to offset against one another. Seeking max MoI causes OB, which causes further MoI reduction, causing inertial torque and increasing the imperative to seek max MoI, instead only causing more OB, etc..

Dunno how far we can get with that rationale tho..

[MrVibrating]

Still, to me, the one-way wheel's static torque seems one of the trickiest aspects to reconcile with any prospective theory..

No trick at all. When the one-way wheel was being stopped, then its weights swung or moved into an OOB condition, which is where Bessler locked the wheel. Being that there were a number of mechanisms inside the wheel, the wheel could be stopped and locked at any one of them. If there were eight bangs each rotation, then there were eight positions where the wheel could be stopped.

When released, the OOB of the internal weights rotated the wheel one sixteenth of a rotation, and during that small rotation the wheel gained enough extra force to rotate slightly more than one sixteenth of a rotation. Thus the wheel made it over its first hump, and then accelerated from there.

My incredulity was specifically addressed at the state of any implied UB weight, which your answer hasn't addressed. I'm guessing you're gonna say it's super top-secret, but if there's two weights and one's descending, what's the other one doing? This is the tricky bit, conceptually... seems to invoke conflicting requirements whichever approach one takes..

[Fletcher]

Fletcher, this is not a reason for assuming gravity imbalance. Earth Gravity is not the source of the oscillations of the weights, where one moves inward and one outward, then they swap.

Centre of gravity is a watch-maker's phrase. Within a watch, a balance wheel oscillates back and forth, never finding a position of equilibrium. Gravitate in this sense is NOT Earth gravity, but rather the center positions toward which the weights gravitate. One weight moves outward as the other moves inward, then they swap. Thus you have oscillation of two weights, one against the other, forever seeking equilibrium, but never finding such.

This translation which you quote is not the best, but it's close enough. Making the assumption that "centre of gravity" means Earth gravity is a big mistake. The phrase refers to a watch-maker's balance-wheel type of oscillation. Take a second look and see if we can't agree that such is a possibility.

Hi jim_mich .. while I agree your interpretation (of a watch-makers phrase/definition) is a possibility, I also think it is an outlier, an outside chance, statistically speaking, of being the correct interpretation.

Sticking with my simple theme of using Ockham's Razor and amateur Statistical Analysis sleuth skills then I'll briefly explain why I think that. You may not find it very satisfying or instructional but that is not its purpose. It is to point out consistencies and corroborations.

First, Bessler says so in the previous quote. It is the only time he uses the word gravity in his descriptions IIRC. And yes, I know gravity force wasn't well defined in those days and it had other Latin terms of the time that meant 'innate heaviness' etc.

Secondly, we currently have two members on this board who claim to have very real physical 'working gravity wheels'. OldNick and Fcdriver. Their claims are yet to be proven but they are reputably past the concept and idea phase, and both are adamant that gravity is the main player.

Thirdly, both Oystein and JC are also equally adamant that Bessler's wheels 'worked' by gravity alone. Both are experienced builders (JC with real world building, and was a consulting engineer) - Oystein with sim work and real builds. Both have have done extensive research into Bessler codes - both have discovered number and geometric codes in AP etc - Oystein claims to have found by way of a separate coding method a special mechanism in AP (and MT) that appears many times in many different proportions. JC has found a special mechanism.

What is common to the latter two is that they both are after their own prime suspect - not gravity force (that's a given for them), but a special mechanism that does something useful. The question is whether each is applying it in the right way ? That remains to be seen.

Whilst I know all (or nearly all) the mathematical arguments for why a gravity wheel can't work, and I have championed them for years, I also can't dismiss weight of evidence to the contrary. Which forces me to keep an open mind.

Secondly, CF is NOT an enemy. It is the force that gives the weight's their motive power. CF is the cause of the sudden wheel acceleration. The wheel's speed peaks when the weights can no longer accelerate and decelerate within the distance allotted to them. Up to that point the rotational forces are extremely strong.

The solution is a very simple arrangement, a very simple mechanism. But of course I'm not yet at liberty to disclose. I really wish I was. Then everyone would see how extremely simple the solution actually is. I'm not the bad guy here. Honestly.

I would say with all respect that MrV in particular would find your interpretation of Bessler's use of the term 'gravity' (and your analysis above) interesting because it fits his prime suspect profile at the moment. As you know, for me, I raked over those coal piles for many years, and never found a hot coal to start a fire. I am relegated to interested spectator status for the most part in this thread but I do sincerely hope that someone else like MrV (or yourself) can find that spark that alluded me and blow on it and objectively prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

[Fletcher]

... Also, if he (Bessler) is thinking about MoI, there are no standard terms to describe this concept. There isn't even a standard term for angular force, so what framework of relevant concepts is left with which to articulate something like inertial torque?

In other words, use of the term "center of gravity" doesn't preclude any such gravitational effects from being epiphenomenon - maybe their state of gravitational balance is incidental to the cause of the asymmetry, but nonetheless at least provides an accurate description of the mechanism, if not its operating principle..

If we move masses between axle and rim to induce inertial torque, then OB / UB is inevitable but incidental. We could still use it to advantage - it could be a happy accident - but the game is still inertial torques, and gravity's the sideline.

That's perhaps where we differ MrV. I suspect that gravity imbalance is what turned the wheels, and MOI change was the the inevitable but incidental consequence of such.

The reason i'm so fixated on variable MoI is that it seems to be the only plausible wildcard that can affect energy outcomes in a big way.

As noted, we can't be looking for something that provides a slight advantage. An interaction 120% or even 150% OU seems too weak to explain the startup performance of his wheels. And MoI offers a way to change the energy value of a given momentum. It's trivial to convert a fast light high-energy momentum into a slower heavier lower-energy one - and not by degrees, but by 200% at once. No OB scheme - no form of gravitational or leverage advantage - comes close to these kinds of energy deltas.

An I/O GPE asymmetry can't cut it. It could never manage the required acceleration, and even if it could, it wouldn't be capable of the load-balancing characteristic - it would slow down when raising a load, and speed up when lowering it. We need something that switches energy scaling regimes, and applies inertial torque directly to the net system - on top of any gravitational OB torques.

What is to me a given, with any gravity based leverage system, is that if we have a Prime Mover then it must 'fall' under gravity. Equally, it must by influence raise upwards another mass somewhere else internally.

What is enshrined in law is that any net GPE lost my the Prime Mover at best will equal the raised GPE of the subsystem element it interacts with (best case scenario). You can not raise the GPE of the system with leverage. But perhaps speculatively you could change the CoG circulation path with the right interactions as an alternative plausible explanation ?

To have a system that does not slow under load or get faster under negative load must as you say have a scaling regime - that can only (in my mind) be distance the prime mover falls related. And here we are talking about falling masses inside a rotating wheel environment. So the interaction of the mechanisms had a compensatory effect, IMO based on displacement within a frame of reference.

ETA: the simple (but probably incorrect) analogy is the Watts Cf governor.

If this GPE is instead, actually UB, then it could be at the dead center, and also be re-extended from there without further lifting... but it had to be lifted there in the first place, by something else already fallen.. and the other weight's still up, in an OB position, remember.. so what raised the UB weight?

Besides, for reasons noted previously, the descending weight can't have been levering the other weight upwards, unless it was somehow rendered almost completely weightless. Otherwise we simply couldn't explain the startup performance, or load balancing etc.

But the UB weight can't be under influence from any dynamical effects either, while the wheel's stopped.

Such speculations could be a mugs game and not useful. Still, to me, the one-way wheel's static torque seems one of the trickiest aspects to reconcile with any prospective theory..

See above. Find the complete Prime Mover mechanism, find its movements, and deduce its purpose, might answer those normally inviolate questions ?

Sorry to sidetrack you MrV - normal transmission will resume shortly ;)

[MrVibrating]

Not a bit of it, i actually wasn't aware there were any current claimants besides Jim, and didn't know gravitating systems were back in vogue. Some kind of levarge-varying role for the prime mover would really simplify things...

Today for instance i've been wondering if there could be a link with 3-phase AC and rotating magnetic fields - if mass is analogous to charge and inertia to magnetic force, then we could conceivably build a mechanical version of a 3-phase AC motor:

Per the AP wheel , the trick would be to have 3 masses changing radius - all three are equal and identical, just 33% out of phase with one another. Just as this generates a rotating magnetic field in a 3-phase inductor, so it should generate a rotating inertial frame in a 3-phase MoI modulation.

How freakin' random is that? Plus "Bessler" even rhymes with "Tesla". Obviously bollox, but now i have to pick it apart and work out why.. a gravity game would be so much simpler, you'd think..


Although, there is one thing i'll say in gravity's favour - in trying to discern some meaningful pattern in the distribution of the two different type "A" characters used in MT, one possibility seems to be that the inflected 'A' refers to inertial forces or solutions, and the regular 'A' to gravitating forces or solutions.

MT 41 for instance shows one of each type letter 'A' for each of the two upper weights - possibly suggesting they're acting under different forces. The toys page however only uses a regular 'A', so might be alluding to a gravitational exploit..

One way or another, i could do with some kind of mental detox from all this inertial guff..

[ME]

is energy changing linearly per GMH or exponentially as a function of MoI?

I think the MoI for a single mechanism should vary.
When considering a lot of mechanisms spread out on multiple wheels on a single axis the MoI should be an offset ring (or so I think): ideally its CoM starting in an overbalanced position when it's not moving, and pointing down when at full speed.
I guess the CoM of this total MoI provides the torque just like an offset weight would behave on a heavy disc - on start-up.
While the former creeps up to its final speed during several rotations, the latter is just a pendulum.

I suspect the energy function would be alike a sigmoid function: 1/(1+e^-t).
Perhaps it needs an added square, some constants and more complicated stuff in there, but I think it would basically shape like that.
I attempted some speed-function here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 041#142041

when one is a function of the other we have analogues of hysteresis, remanance and coercivity coming into effect

The "one being a function of the other" is actually the problem.

Most attempts are related to GPE, which is actually just a single number: height (h).
With the only actual physics we have (g=9.80665 m/s²), we could imply the rest which is all connected by math (yeah well, structure-dependent complexity)
A height implies that some fraction (or all) of g provides acceleration, a velocity, a distance, a force, lost potential, gained kinetic; then you put it on a wheel and it connects to all angular stuff, centrifugal, torque, MoI and whatever... And hope this single number of (h) gets bigger the next time we check the numbers.
-- It should stay the same because of CoE, but it only gets lower by friction.... unless the math sucks at some point, and that's the main question :-)

That Hysteresis (or Carnot - whichever works) is therefore officially a single CoE function: some function f(h) per function g(h), which actually only shows (h).
To get us some good hysteresis it seems we first need to find us a good spring-like variant which is able to give its stored energy just when it gets out-of-phase: angle- (not time) dependent, or having a frequency which is close to the rotation-frequency of a wheel at full-speed...
And it still needs to break CoE ...
(ah well I babble too, sorry for that :-)

Plus "Bessler" even rhymes with "Tesla"

[Fletcher]

Although, there is one thing i'll say in gravity's favour - in trying to discern some meaningful pattern in the distribution of the two different type "A" characters used in MT, one possibility seems to be that the inflected 'A' refers to inertial forces or solutions, and the regular 'A' to gravitating forces or solutions.

MT 41 for instance shows one of each type letter 'A' for each of the two upper weights - possibly suggesting they're acting under different forces.

The toys page however only uses a regular 'A', so might be alluding to a gravitational exploit..

One way or another, i could do with some kind of mental detox from all this inertial guff..

You obviously have a lot of horsepower MrV - but even that isn't inexhaustible I'd guess - so a switch up sometimes overcomes inertia and is refreshing.

On your funky A theme etc.

Another MT with the two types is MT 21 - MT 20 before it has a large funky A and no other lettering at all.

Read what Oystein said today in dax's thread. He was generously throwing out a bone.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 573#146573

One opinion:

Yes, I believed he knew and used such a tool!

But, I think that the fact that he actually proves that he uses the tool, is more important than what you can discover by applying the tool in the pictures.

Meaning that it has mechanical significance...

[Fletcher]

Most attempts are related to GPE, which is actually just a single number: height (h).

With the only actual physics we have (g=9.80665 m/s²), we could imply the rest which is all connected by math (yeah well, structure-dependent complexity).

A height implies that some fraction (or all) of g provides acceleration, a velocity, a distance, a force, lost potential, gained kinetic; then you put it on a wheel and it connects to all angular stuff, centrifugal, torque, MoI and whatever ...

And hope this single number of (h) gets bigger the next time we check the numbers.

-- It should stay the same because of CoE, but it only gets lower by friction.... unless the math sucks at some point, and that's the main question :-)

Hi ME .. that has been my point a few times also. In a rotating wheel, whatever the cause of the rotation increasing rpm is, the internal parts can not gain more NET GPE - it's effectively a closed height system for them.

That's why I think a different CoG/COM circulation path is plausible for a Gravity Only system.

[MrVibrating]

More random guff on the 3-phase foolery - i was thinking, in the EM version, the load is still applied back to the input via Lenz's law, which is the EM alter ego of Newton's 3rd law.

So, with that in mind, how would N3 apply to the mechanical version if it actually did produce a net torque - would it get harder to move masses in and out as axle loading is increased? That doesn't sound right.. on the contrary, anything that slowed the wheel down would make it easier to move masses in and out.

Also, the reaction mass is accelerating with the rest of the system.. assuming there is any net acceleration of course. So now i'm thinking that if it did produce a net torque, it would also be thermodynamically decoupled, and the same applied inertial torque will produce the same acceleration of net momentum regardless of rising velocity - IOW, not following the usual half-square of velocity, with diminishing returns for successive accelerations, but instead evolving linearly, ie. resulting in a speed-invariant constant cost of acceleration and thus OU?

So the 3-phase jig would be the sideshow - the main gig would be the N3 violation - that's where the excess energy would be coming from - basically, from dragging our reaction mass around with us, albeit in a rotating frame. Again, such an exploit would be consistent with the statorless requirement. The torque is unbalanced force from the tri-phase MoI variation, but the energy paying for the displacements is basically an input subsidy - a given kg/m/s acceleration costing a consistent Joule value regardless of rising RPM (normally, at 10* the initial velocity, say, the unit energy cost of acceleration has risen fifty-fold). Under such conditions the per-cycle efficiency is 5000% and rising..

This is the kind of heavyweight OU needed to explain his wheels' startup performance. Delicate little OB games can F right off, they've no place here. If it is, instead, a gravitational asymmetry, then it's a total one; the UB mass must be effectively weightless, or else the OB mass falls with twice its normal GPE, somehow..

My money's still on the MoI game, for now...

[MrVibrating]

In a nutshell, a mechanical analogue of a Lenz-less 3-phase AC motor, pumping inerital momentum instead of current, via tri-phased radial translations. The gain principle is simply the fact that, when a pirouetting skater pulls her limbs inwards, she's effectively taking her reaction mass along with her, keeping it inside the accelerating frame. It's basically reactionless thrust - the fabled inertial motor - except it usually reverses symmetrically (she slows down when letting her limbs back out). So the trick isn't really violating N3 - that ability is already implicit in the variability of MoI compared to linear inertia and rest mass. Rather, it's being able to step outside the usual circle of reciprocation, and generate a net torque from cyclic radial translations. If we can do that - if we can harness this kind of torque - then we needn't worry about paying for it. It pays for itself, and then some..

[Fletcher]

Yes, that is it in a nut-shell for MOI induced RKE increase.

No one (that I know of) has managed to decouple or attenuate the yin and the yang of the translations, though I appreciate you are trying.

jim_mich claims to have it sorted - but then you have probably read his posts on the subject and know he was intent on moving mass at a radius forward relative to the wheel, and backward also, using asymmetric Cf's - pairs of pairs changing places, creating a mechanical maxwellian demon, that lead to a surplus of usable KE. Perhaps he can inspire your directions.

Best of luck as always.

[MrVibrating]

Back again, had other things to attend to..

Didn't know the details of Jim's concept, interesting... pairs of pairs seem consistently more promising than lone pairs, as i've noted for some time..


Latest thoughts have dwelt on trying to deploy static inertia as a motive force. Inspired by the rapid acceleration of Bessler's wheels, and the one-directional version, i've been trying to find ways of converting GPE to RKE, via MoI, more effectively.

To this end, my attention was drawn to the fact that if a pendulum's bob is also pivoted, then its angular inertia will defy the rotation of the pendulum beam iteself, like this:




The green rotor has a separate bearing on the same axis, currently doing nothing. The point of interest is simply that the red rotor doesn't rotate, relative to us the observer.

But it does rotate from within the rest frame of the pendulum beam! There is relative angular motion between them, and thus a potential source of torque, in the form of the red rotor's resistance to angular accelerations - its MoI.

The rotors are shaped as they're depicted here, as shells, with all their mass concentrated around their perimeter, maximising their MoI for their respective masses.

So, i added a transmission system between the red and green rotors - converting the input torque between the red rotor and beam, into an output torque between the beam and green rotor:



All it really demonstrates is the first law, CoM, there's no free work or asymmetry of any kind. But what is interesting, to me at least, is that a static flywheel's resistance to accelerations in either direction is sufficient to cause a consistent actual angular acceleration in another, separate mass.

The masses and radii used here are in a 4:1 ratio, and so are the two gear linkages used - one conveying positive torques via the function "body[1].v.r > 0", and negative torques via the other, flipping the sign to "<" (where "body[1] is the beam, 'v' is velocity, 'r' is rotation - basically distinguishing CW from CCW motion as alternate 'active' conditions for the two transmissions).


Just struck me as a novel way to employ MoI, effectively exploiting a reluctance to work, as a direct cause of work elsewhere.. kinda.. esp. the fact that angular motions are induced in the rotors without sacrificing swing height (because the rotors are returning their momentum as the bob rises - trivial, but still a novel arrangement).