Blood From Stone

[MrVibrating]

The torque angle of the motor has nothing to do with it.

The only thing that matters is how high the weight was lifted (GPE) and how fast the wheel turns (RKE)

Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

But thanks for trying!

Mate, the whole point is that weight gets lifted and dropped equal height, for no net change in height...!


Again, i've clearly stated that the objective was to perform a GPE interaction (lifting and dropping a weight equal distance) whilst collecting a momentum rise.

The experiment does that. It works as intended.

If you're squinting at it trying to see how it might form a perpetually-OB wheel, that's not the intention so we're on different pages..


Again, in a 'normal' GPE interaction, in order to lift a weight upwards, we need to move it, hence give it velocity, hence momentum, and thus apply equal opposing downwards momentum to Earth. That momentum and counter-momentum obviously cancel out to zero.

The idea here was to apply that counter-momentum to the descending side of a heavy wheel instead of the Earth.

So we push the weight upwards, whilst pushing the wheel around, instead of the Earth downwards. Thus the counter-momentum is kept within our rotating system, instead of being transmitted to Earth.

Furthermore, lifting the weight applies positive momentum to the wheel, but dropping it also applies positive momentum to the wheel.

So we're applying momentum of the same sign to the wheel, when both lifting and dropping the weight.

The objective is an asymmetric momentum interaction from an energy-symmetrical GPE interaction. So a gain in momentum, rather than a gain in energy.

Mechanical OU wrests on the former, more than the latter. The energy gain only arises by accumulating the reactionless momentum resulting from a succession of such asymmetric inertial interactions. The energy gain occurs when and only when the cost of generating this momentum remains constant irrespective of rising system velocity.

This is what i'm endeavoring to measure.

Sorry if the logic seems too convoluted, but this is the language of mechanical OU - we are led by the maths of OU, and not the other way around unfortunately...

[MrVibrating]

OK i've knocked up an idealised test rig - the motor torque is perfectly synced to the wheel angle, so it'll supply whatever the necessary torque to hold the weight at constant height, irrespective of the wheel's velocity:



As noted, any energy anomaly from a reactionless momentum rise would only become apparent after a minimum of two cycles - presumably, the cost of operating the motor will increase with velocity, such that the integral of torque * angle should be equal to the net system KE, so two cycles should clearly show whether it is or not..

The version shown here is quite lo-fi (200 Hz) - sufficient to demonstrate the experiment, however i'll be taking data at 1 kHz for increased accuracy.

Since this first cycle is 15.315 seconds in duration, at 1 kHz (one thousand simulation steps per second) it'll produce 15,315 discrete samples of torque and angle, to the 6 sigfigs shown.

The resulting data table will be loaded into Excel, using Riemann sums to tot up the integral.

Then i'll repeat the process again for a second cycle, picking up where the first one left off (ie. the ending conditions of the 1st cycle will be the starting conditions of the 2nd).

Having din dins first tho so no rush..

[Fletcher]

Mr V .. FWIW .. I think many of us agree that B's wheels must have accumulated momentum - Karl even says so etc etc.

Each of us rationalizes how this might happen, even when in conflict with standard physics arguments that we all know only too well.

Fortunately we all attack the 'excess momentum problem' and priority of the constituent elements differently else this entire quagmire of an argument would have dried up eons ago.

So I applaud anyone who continues to throw fresh light on the subject. I might not always agree or even follow, but I do read and try to digest all/your arguments. Hoping that someone will try a new approach or analysis that will be the insightful moment when the veil lifts and it becomes self-evident.

Just a side note - the pendulum drawings of B's wheels are/have been often discussed. Generally it is agreed that they were never observed in action and he said they were for speed regulation (inertial manipulation). Yet the Kassel (I think) wheel drawings show a strange connection from the crank to the cross bar. It limits the swing amplitude of the pendulum. IOW's unequal heights (GPE) achieved each swing left and right i.e. one side higher than the other.

I suggest this mechanical anomaly is not related to speed regulation (that's the mass distribution of the pendulum) but it is a visual metaphor for what we are attempting to find - Excess Momentum.

Tho clearly IMO using a pendulum as depicted is not the mechanical answer we seek. It is IMO however symbolism signaling of the correct direction to take.

[MrVibrating]

OK, just finished a high-res measurement of the first cycle:

Peak KE at BDC = 42.366870, including the GPE of the 5 gram lever itself, over the 1 meter radius drop at 9.80665 m/s^2 = 0.4903325 J.

42.366870 - 0.4903325 = 41.8765375 J.

Motor torque * angle integral = 41.87652 J.

As expected then, perfect unity for the first cycle.

Presumably we'll get the same result for the second cycle too, but it's too late for tonight..


I do suspect it's not going to waver tho, the problem, as noted, is that the motor speed has to increase to match the rising RPM's.

However OU can only arise when the speed of whatever mass or inertia against which the torque is being applied remains constant with respect to the wheel. It can vary throughout a given cycle (must, logically), but for each complete cycle the rotor and 'stator' must remain together in the same inertial frame - everything rotating together. This prevents the per-cycle input energy from squaring up with rising RPM's, instead remaining constant while the RKE value of the net system increases per I * w^2 /2.

This is where the current scheme falls down, i think - it gains momentum just fine, but the energy cost of doing so is bound to square up with the rising motor speed..

Still, the fat lady can wait til tomoz..

Attached .zip archive contains the sim, torque / angle data and integration sheet (no point including an animation - it's just the same interaction simmed at a snail's pace).

[MrVibrating]

Mr V .. FWIW .. I think many of us agree that B's wheels must have accumulated momentum - Karl even says so etc etc.

Each of us rationalizes how this might happen, even when in conflict with standard physics arguments that we all know only too well.

Fortunately we all attack the 'excess momentum problem' and priority of the constituent elements differently else this entire quagmire of an argument would have dried up eons ago.

So I applaud anyone who continues to throw fresh light on the subject. I might not always agree or even follow, but I do read and try to digest all/your arguments. Hoping that someone will try a new approach or analysis that will be the insightful moment when the veil lifts and it becomes self-evident.

Just a side note - the pendulum drawings of B's wheels are/have been often discussed. Generally it is agreed that they were never observed in action and he said they were for speed regulation (inertial manipulation). Yet the Kassel (I think) wheel drawings show a strange connection from the crank to the cross bar. It limits the swing amplitude of the pendulum. IOW's unequal heights (GPE) achieved each swing left and right i.e. one side higher than the other.

I suggest this mechanical anomaly is not related to speed regulation (that's the mass distribution of the pendulum) but it is a visual metaphor for what we are attempting to find - Excess Momentum.

Tho clearly IMO using a pendulum as depicted is not the mechanical answer we seek. It is IMO however symbolism signaling of the correct direction to take.

Cheers Fletch, yes, all kinds of weird stuff going on in the Kassel prints - i've text-walled 'em enough already, but the drive directions of the mechanisms, if you follow them through carefully, also produce paradoxical results.

As for the pendulums, today i've been considering a more general point:

• As i've been relating, OU cannot arise unless rotor and 'stator' remain at equal velocity for each complete cycle as the machine accelerates. Obviously there must be some variation within a cycle, in order to apply a torque or other force between them and so generate this unilateral momentum required. But over each complete cycle, the two interacting inertias have to accelerate together. Everything must go around together. This really is a key condition for mechanical OU.

Whereas, when a motor torques a rotor against a properly-stationary stator, the unit energy cost of momentum squares with velocity, if both can remain together at equal speed (implying that each asymmetric inertial interaction is consolidated by a subsequent inelastic impact), the input energy per cycle remains constant, speed-invariant, and we gain energy from generating momentum on the cheap.

• So then if a motor that fully rotates or counter-rotates is going to preclude success (as in my current scheme), what about an oscillating 'stator' - ie. something that alternates direction, so never gaining more displacement in either direction - would its energy cost thus remain constant despite rising RPM's?

For example, some kind of 'pendulum' (not necessarily swinging under gravity) pivoted at the rim and banging around at the axle or beyond it - could we somehow torque the wheel against its inertia, basically using it as a 'stator' even though the whole thing's rotating with the wheel?

..just loose unfinished thoughts, for now..

The most frustrating thing is my own density - on paper, it's trivially easy to plot up monstrous KE gains by invoking nothing more exotic than a gravity-assisted asymmetric inertial interaction - something i've now demonstrated in multiple iterations - however matching some kind of physical mechanism to these requisite conditions - generate unilateral momentum, consolidate and accumulate it - is really stretching my attention span.. It should be simple to design some mechanism that does what the maths do!? But converting the abstract into something physical is doing my nut in.. How hard can it be when we all but have the instructions laid out?

B. concluded in AP that no one else had found it because none but him had been diligent enough in the search. Yet we've already found it, the gain principle at least... the remaining challenge isn't a search for a gain principle, but simply how to physically apply the guaranteed gains we know are available from accumulating reactionless angular momentum..

The deliberate occlusion errors in the Kassel engravings imply that either the stampers, or suspended box, must fall upwards. In a similar vein, MT 47 implies that the image frame should also be considered upside down. In either case, pointing to counter-momenta applied back to the 'stator' or Earth. Whatever these clues are hinting at seems directly related to harnessing counter-momentum, and the statorless requirement...

[MrVibrating]

Final thought for the night:

• That paradox i mentioned earlier:

- the one-way wheels were under static torque, despite being statorless, which implies it was OB torque (GPE)

- OU however depends upon asymmetric inertial interactions - ie. a force is applied between two inertias, albeit only accelerating one of them



So either that's a contradiction, or it is not.. either way, its resolution lights another path to the answers we seek..

[MrVibrating]

..here's a preview of the 2nd cycle. Will do the integration later for completeness.



Straight away tho, we see that the energy has simply doubled - each cycle has raised 40.2 J of KE.

It thus seems most likely that this 2nd t*a integral is also 40.2 J. Will check it later for certainty, but we can further note for now the momentum increase:

- 1st cycle ended with 89.682 p of AM

- 2nd cycle ends with 126.818 p

...so the 2nd cycle didn't double up our initial momentum yield:

- 2 * 89.682 would've netted us 179.364 p

- The ratio of that to what we got instead - 179.364 / 126.818 = 1.414, our old nemesis, the square root of 2 (Pythagoras's constant)

- How much less momentum did we get on the 2nd cycle compared to the first? 126.818 - 89.682 = 37.136. 89.682 / 100 * 37.136 = 33.3 %

..in short, all indications are we're spending the same energy per cycle, for an ever-decreasing momentum yield.. IOW, it looks like the energy cost of momentum is squaring up with velocity, hence the concept in it's current form cannot make progress..

[MrVibrating]

..one interesting aspect is that i'd assumed a negative result would see the input energy increase, for an identical momentum yield... but instead we get the same net result, only inverted - input energy remains constant per cycle, irrespective of rising velocity (yay!), but the momentum yield goes down (nay!)..

The winning combination, of constant input energy for a constant momentum yield regardless of rising speed, remains elusive..

We know it must possible tho, since there is no other pathway to mechanical OU..

[cloud camper]

Thanks for trying!

[ME]

The most frustrating thing is my own density - on paper, it's trivially easy to plot up monstrous KE gains by invoking nothing more exotic than a gravity-assisted asymmetric inertial interaction - something i've now demonstrated in multiple iterations - however matching some kind of physical mechanism to these requisite conditions - generate unilateral momentum, consolidate and accumulate it - is really stretching my attention span.. It should be simple to design some mechanism that does what the maths do!? But converting the abstract into something physical is doing my nut in.. How hard can it be when we all but have the instructions laid out?

In multiple iterations you made errors in your calculations, and I pointed it out several times. So yes, you can plot whatever you want. Doesn't mean it's correct.

Please dump that motor-thing and replace it with a spring!! It's easier to calculate spring potential, but may never know where the motor gets its virtual juice.

So here I show you a setup as like your first post, but with a spring... you could make a practical model out of it if you really want.
At least on my side of the screen, all energy values are accounted for... I checked, added them all up, and totals as one good enough constant only dancing at the 7th decimal.
It's possible you missed some values to check as there are a lot more than you probably realize... More than just the linear momentum of the retract-weight and the angular momentum of the wheel...
(The totality of motions to check amounts to more than two hands, and then plus some more energy values)

M,main=10 kg
R.main=0.51 m (actually wanted to put the gear at the 0.5 edge)
MoI,main (disc)=1.3005 kg m²

M.bars=0.01 kg each (the blue ones)
M.Gears=0.01 kg each (the yellow ones)
r.Gearwheel =0.05 m
x.Gears=0.5 m

M.RetractWeight=10 kg( the orange one)
r.RetractWeight=0.05 m

The spring attached to the weight and the top of the other gear (to get a preferred upwards direction)
The length of the spring causes 0 tension when the retract-weight is at the center.

K.Spring=958.4 N/m (a good enough value for a 90° wheel rotation)
L.Spring= |0.05 ; 0.5| ≈ 0.50249 m
Expanded.Spring= |0.05 ; 1.5|≈1.50083 m

Initial Spring Force ≈ 956.8 N/m
Initial Potential Energy of spring ≈ 477.61 J
Duration till center: ∆t ≈ 0.2 s
Final w,Main = 608.4°/s

[Fletcher]

Somebody might get a smile out of this simple sim demo. Kinda makes the point about GPE lost and KE gained, momentums etc.

Doesn't use springs but does use gears and weights. Turns for quite a while I guess, but is no more PM than my elbow.

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

We know B's wheels had OOB at start, soooo .. must have an OOB system (as already said by Mr V a post or two back).

But .. we know that OOB systems are torque symmetric (adhere to CoE and CoM), soooo .. it must have had another purpose, other than just getting the thing to start turning. This purpose is not initially obvious and why B can describe it the way he does with relative impunity i.e. basically describing OB systems.

Wolff backs up the presumption because he sighted (cited) elastic or expandable arms etc. Karl said it accumulated momentum (which an OOB system (on its own) can NOT do).

Karl also said it was simple, so much so that a carpenters boy could look at it and build it, and he wondered why no one else had thought of it. He looked at it and went straight to what drove it around and described it as momentum. It was not necessary for Karl to "understand" how it worked. He had a visual on it and he saw the result. He inferred it was momentum, but he probably also saw just what the prime mover configuration was that gave him that opinion rather than saying it was weight imbalance ?!

Soooo .. our job is to find the add-on to the OOB system that creates the conditions for accumulating momentum. And it must all go around with the wheel with nothing hanging from the axle etc. What are those conditions where a lw systems range of movement is used in a positive contributing (reinforcing) way to create excess momentum in another structure, so that the whole rotates and builds momentum ? What is that other structure that would benefit from the movement of a lw OB system ? Lastly why does this other structure activated by the OB system subvert the Laws of CoE and CoM for the entire wheel ??!!

N.B. I think we'd need to find the physical simple construction to see it working because the physics violation won't fall out of the math without a trail of bread crumbs to follow IINM.

Just sharing my thoughts for today hoping it might spark off someone else.

[ovyyus]

Wolff backs up the presumption because he sighted (cited) elastic or expandable arms etc.

Wolff didn't actually see any arms, he made an assumption:

I conclude, not only from this but also from other circumstantial evidence, that the weights are attached to some moveable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel.

[Fletcher]

Cheers Bill .. here's the larger quote to consider (separated out by me).

To prevent anyone accidentally seeing the internal structure of the machine, he covered it. Whilst he did this, he did not disguise the fact that the mechanism is moved by weights. Several such weights, wrapped in his handkerchief, he let us weigh in our hands to estimate their weight. They were judged to be about four pounds each, and their shape was definitely cylindrical.

I conclude, not only from this but also from other circumstantial evidence, that the weights are attached to some moveable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel.

During rotation, one can clearly hear the weights hitting against the wooden boards. I was able to observe these through a slit. They are slightly elongated. (n.b. short boards perpendicular to the rim)

When he put the wheel onto another support and reinstalled the weights in their previous positions, he pushed down on an iron spring that gave a loud noise as it expanded upwards.

I therefore presume that there is no doubt that the wheel is moved by an internal source of power, but we cannot necessarily assume that it is perpetual.

Wolff was able to observe short boards, at the least, thru the slits. He heard noise of impacts from presumably these same weights. He said B did not disguise the fact that the mechanism is moved by weights (imo the OB system, probably consisting of lws of some sort) assumed by Wolff to be weights attached to moveable or elastic arms by other circumstantial evidence he saw but does not give.

The important part IMO is probably that the weights were covered with a handkerchief. Yet they were weights able to lose and gain GPE (because they are moveable). So the covering of the weights probably concealed some other purpose (other than keeping grease of the handler), such as acting as rollers. That would mean the weight was pivoted on the end of an arm so it could rotate, and would not be 'fixed' relative to an arm. You might want to hide how a weight is attached to something as wear marks would indicate whether it rolled on its connection or not. Added to that the weights were cylindrical in shape. Other shapes are just as easy to cast in lead, if not easier. But apparently being circular was important enough to cover them, not because they were circular which could be felt, but because they would show wear marks and impact marks I suggest.

And we often assume that the purpose of roller weights must be for the OB system to operate freely with least friction.

I am suggesting that roller weights are not related to the efficiency or coefficients of friction for the OB system; but are integral to a 'conveying' of timed impulses to the secondary system, which is the prime mover that carries that impulse and makes the OU physics violation possible.

P.S. springs might have no other purpose than to act as a sort of rudimentary suspension system for parts of the wheel (visualize a bullldozer track tensioner for example). Springs themselves are not OU capable.

[ovyyus]

Wolff's investigation seemed to indicate to him that weights moved around the wheel's periphery (which he didn't see) and that they were possibly connected to (radial) arms (which he didn't see) and that they impacted against short rim boards (which he did see).

I suggest, therefore, that the weights on the wheel's periphery are attached by rods in such a way that when at rest on the lighter side of the wheel, they can be lifted, but when they start to fall, after the wheel has turned, they deliver a force on impact, acquired during the fall, onto a piece of wood which is fixed to the periphery. In this way, the wheel is put into rotation by the impact of the weights, which can be heard.

[Fletcher]

You got me there Bill, didn't remember that specific Wolff quote .. had to look it up to see what was different from the other.

The latter quote you gave was from a letter to Schumacher dated 3rd July 1722, whilst the earlier quote was from a letter to Leibniz, examination of Merseburg wheel, 19th December, 1715. So some 7 years had passed unless Wolff examined a second wheel ? Was the Merseberg wheel the translocation tested wheel, or another ? I think it was.

'...1. To begin with, it would appear to be beyond doubt that Orffyreus' wheel is not moved by any imaginable external force but rather, its movement is due to the internal weights which are applied in a special manner. My reasons for arriving at this conclusion are:

a) I saw, myself, that the wheel began to rotate with speed and uniformity, without any appreciable external thrust or push until it was slowed from outside. Any attempt at fraud from outside was impossible because the wheel bearings were uncovered on both sides and one could see the axle journals turning in their bearings. Upon request, the wheel was moved from its stand and put on another one.

b) Before translocating the wheel, the Inventor who was performing the test for the officially appointed Commissioners, took out the weights and permitted one of them to be touched, wrapped in a handkerchief. He did not allow the weight to be touched on the end, but lengthwise, it felt cylindrical and not very thick (me .. e.g. like a coke can shape, taller than wide). One could hear the weights landing on the overbalanced side, as though they were swinging, from which one can assume that the overbalancing was caused by their impact.

Furthermore there is the testimony of the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, who is experienced in evaluating mechanical inventions and had seen the internal mechanism of the wheel and ran it for many weeks in a locked room, keeping the keys himself, having personally locked and sealed the doors and windows with his own seal. He testified both verbally and in an officially printed certificate that the movement of the wheel was caused by nothing more than the weights and that it would run continuously unless the internal structure of the wheel was altered.

2. Since it is impossible, according to mathematical proof, for a machine to run continuously by its own force, some matter from outside must contribute to its motion. That matter can not be perceived by any of the senses but could be made use of by people who know nature better.

I suggest, therefore, that the weights on the wheel's periphery are attached by rods in such a way that when at rest on the lighter side of the wheel, they can be lifted, but when they start to fall, after the wheel has turned, they deliver a force on impact, acquired during the fall, onto a piece of wood which is fixed to the periphery. (me .. i.e. extra force (velocity) acquired during fall) In this way, the wheel is put into rotation by the impact of the weights, which can be heard.

But the force which drives the weights, does not come from the machine itself, rather it comes from some fluid, invisible matter by which the movement of the falling weights becomes faster and faster.

Orffyreus' whole invention consists of an artful arrangement of weights, in such a way that they are lifted when at rest and acquire force during their fall, and in my opinion it is this that he keeps secret. This is also consistent with what Orffyreus says, that anyone could easily understand his invention, as soon as he is allowed to look into the wheel.

3. It is possible therefore, that when the internal structure of the wheel has been revealed, some mathematicians may decide that it is not a perpetual motion machine as there is an additional force involved, namely the unknown substance which applies continuous pressure to heavy bodies when they fall, and which adds to the force of their impact...'

- letter from Christian Wolff to Johann Daniel Schumacher, 3rd July, 1722.

So it appears to me that with the passage of time Wolff can both remember more detail and has a firm view on how it worked. IOW's the detail and speculation increased over time. He had no doubt been thinking about it ever since he first witnessed it in operation. He was observant and a logical thinker by all accounts, so by his nature he would try to assign significance and meaning to his observations as time went on. Just as we all do.

Here is the quote about the translocation written in 1715.

.. It was possible to translocate the machine and turn it left and right as many times as was asked by the assembled respectable Commission. The machine regained its strong, even and fast rotation each time. The movement was accompanied by quite a loud noise caused by the internal mechanism which lasted until the machine was brought to a forced stop. Nothing suspicious was found.

Finally, it should be noted that right from the start, before the machine was subjected to any testing, all rooms above, below and on either side were examined by the Commission. It was also verified that the stamps were not hollow, and no indication of any mechanism moved by a cord was found.

All that has been written above is the truth, and has been acknowledged by signatures in our own hand without any reservations. This certificate was issued at the respectful, obedient and proper request of the Inventor' - Certificate for wheel tested at Merseburg, signed 31st October, 1715.

Anyways .. Wolff has arrived over time at a strong opinion about excess force from within but also unknown that creates what is effectively a higher velocity to falling weights and is essentially an impact driven wheel.

We all appreciate that falling faster increases KE. But we don't know how to do that from within (i.e. no fraud) without increasing GPE and that is problematic in a closed path wheel as per Stevin's principle and CoE and CoM etc.

So there is room IMO for another reason for what effectively is an OOB system to be included that does not, an can not ever, create excess momentum ! It therefore must have another role and the OOB torque symmetry is incidental to the movement IMO.