Blood From Stone

[cloud camper]

Sam, just build a working wheel and be done with it.

If it doesn't work then just shoot yourself!

Merry Christmas everybody!

[Fletcher]

If having self doubts just think about this.

Bessler did not know the Laws of Physics or even the math behind them as we do today.

He used the lexicon of his times and the occasional English and Latin word in the mix, such as force, and movement (in his MT notations).

I can't think of one instance when he talked about Torque, or even attempted to describe turning force in terms of loss of GPE (height). Newton had published his treatise. But KE wasn't mathematically well defined nor succinct like it is today. So mathematical symmetry (Noether's Theorom, Laws of Thermodynamics et al) were not formulated, nor promulgated, nor widely accepted. He made only one mention of Gravity and that was in AP. He did talk about excess impetus, momentum, and imbalance. Hardly words to impress the gentry or the scientific community, and cower the weak minded and gullible.

So knowing your Physics and Math is not the prerequisite to success in this endeavor. If Bessler's alleged success and descriptive of an innate 'True PMM' was as he claimed it to be !

Not believe him and you are free to leave the room, think no more about it, and get on with your life. Many have chosen this route.

Believe him, or at least suspect there is more to the story to be uncovered, and you will search for that one allusive combination of mechanics that could achieve what Bessler described. And you will go down many dead ends, and be fatigued at times, and probably sacrifice much, the least of which is time. But nothing more will be asked of you than Bessler himself was prepared to endure to find his answer to mechanical "True PM'.

Your biggest enemy is your own mind.

[ovyyus]

I find that I'm developing a deep hatred for this forum.

There's a lot to hate. But....

[raj]

Hello Fletcher!

What a piece of thought provoking writing.

Thank you, for your encouraging words for scientific lay person like me.

BRAVO!

Raj

[Fletcher]

Raj .. for you I'll throw in another hypothetical bone.

Many thought that Bessler was mad, he by all accounts had a difficult temperament. The question is was that due to nature or nurture ? Had the stress of constant disappointment and desperation in his 10 year quest shaped his behaviour and sent him over the edge. Possibly. Or was his character a symptom of his paranoia in then keeping his secret for another 33 years (other than to Karl). Probably.

Or was he just ornery because he was what some might describe as a Polymath. The inference being that he must be more intelligent than most, more prepared than most being skilled in multiple disciplines, and that gave him an implied advantage over the rest of us and perhaps entitled him to have a few character flaws ? You know, the tortured imperfect genius. That impression can blow the wind from your sails if you think you are genetically challenged in the first place.

What Bessler did was learn from his mistakes ! He compiled a book about them. He covered a lot of ground, and was diligent, and kept on making those same mistakes albeit as variations on an ultimately futile theme which he eventually recognised. Then he had his eyes opened to a new possibility. A combination that resembled his previous attempts but had entirely different results. This one had imbalance (tick) and excess momentum (torque)(tick).

After having discovered his secret mechanical principle to 'True PM' he realized it was absurdly simple. There was no mystique, no intrigue at all. 'Bleedin obvious'. So simple he was worried a buyer would feel cheated. So he offered to sell MT with the wheel. And MT contained his mechanical secret to PM, but as Oystein alleges and I agree, it also contained other secrets, those of secret societies pitting science against religion, unmasking Euclidean and Sacred Geometry for instance. This was because the secret of his mechanical 'True PM' was lacklustre and a one trick pony in the final analysis. It lacked broad ranging market appeal without another substantial hook into the aristocracy and the money train.

And here is the kicker. His mechanical principle of 'True PM' has no direct connection to Euclidean or Sacred Geometry, and so a knowledge of it whilst interesting, and useful in enhancing your conversational stock at dinner parties, perhaps, it does not advance your chances of discovering the same mechanical principle. Ain't that a goodin.

All said and done, make your share of mistakes, and learn from them, but remember to move on.

[ME]

So knowing your Physics and Math is not the prerequisite to success in this endeavor. If Bessler's alleged success and descriptive of an innate 'True PMM' was as he claimed it to be !

Just as caveman didn't know about any of the formula's on friction, they still managed to create a way to make fire... Either by accident or perhaps even by deductive reasoning (same sort of brain, just lack of experience, culture and, what we call, education)
And then there are people who'll conclude from all this that most of the physics formula's are wrong.
I firmly believe Bessler must have had a so-called mechanics/methodical mind-set that allowed him to see right true and grasp certain interactions... with just enough knowledge and experience it will no longer matter much (esp. in those days) if you're repairing a clock, a human being, an organ or investigating perpetual motion (either knowing how to succeed, or create a make-believe).
The Physics formula's may be unknown on paper, but their consequences are still observable for some. It's a talent some have more than others, some are better equipped, some have more experience, some are better trained, and some have completely different talents. But you'll never know when you don't try, yet no one asks for it. Its discovery and expansion usually depends on opportunity. For all, have fun.

[ovyyus]

After having discovered his secret mechanical principle to 'True PM' he realized...

Bessler never actually said his 'true pm' secret was a mechanical principle. Bessler's MT describes the futility of a mechanical principle 'false pm' and points to a 'true PM' solution - the application of a prime mover capable of lifting weights. A prime mover harnesses a physical principle, not a mechanical principle. Therefore, I think Bessler's 'true pm' secret was probably a physical principle.

[Fletcher]

And I guess Bill that is where opinions diverge. Can a physical principle still include a mechanical principle ? Yes, obviously, but what was the prime mover ?

Your way of lifting the weights with the addition of your prime mover answers that question very rationally. Is it 'true pm' ? I don't have a feel for what was in B's mind (or Karl's) regarding assisted lifting as 'true pm' because he never commented on Drebbel's clock, or similar use of natural ambient forces, as a way to true pm, but of lesser consequence to yours.

What he did say was that he had taken pics out of MT that proved the possibility. But had left ALL demos and experiments (mechanical) because no illustration by itself contained a description of the motion. And finally that combining various illustrations a movement could be found. Obviously there are not just mechanical contraptions using gravity, but wind etc. So one couldn't rule assisted lifting (physical principle) out on that alone.

However, it is widely believed that B. included at least the Toy's Page with his comments about something extraordinary for anyone knowing how to apply them in a different way. Absolutely nothing on that page suggests to me a prime mover out of the realms of mechanical principles. The Whistling Top comes closest to being suggestive of the harnessing of air flow but then so does every wheel in motion experience air drag so not quite so revealing as it might first appear.

[ovyyus]

Your way of lifting the weights with the addition of your prime mover answers that question very rationally. Is it 'true pm' ?

No, not by any standard. Not unless the heat difference required to power the weight-lifting mechanism is made to appear inexhaustible. Then it might be 'true pm' by some standard.

[raj]

Gravitational pull on hanging objects vertically downwards from their moving pivots can be constrained and redirected by special arrangements of tethers in different direction and position

In the drawing, larger wheel in black is twice the size of and rotates at twice the speed of smaller wheel in red.

Raj

[MrVibrating]

If having self doubts just think about this.

Bessler did not know the Laws of Physics or even the math behind them as we do today.

He used the lexicon of his times and the occasional English and Latin word in the mix, such as force, and movement (in his MT notations).

I can't think of one instance when he talked about Torque, or even attempted to describe turning force in terms of loss of GPE (height). Newton had published his treatise. But KE wasn't mathematically well defined nor succinct like it is today. So mathematical symmetry (Noether's Theorom, Laws of Thermodynamics et al) were not formulated, nor promulgated, nor widely accepted. He made only one mention of Gravity and that was in AP. He did talk about excess impetus, momentum, and imbalance. Hardly words to impress the gentry or the scientific community, and cower the weak minded and gullible.

So knowing your Physics and Math is not the prerequisite to success in this endeavor. If Bessler's alleged success and descriptive of an innate 'True PMM' was as he claimed it to be !

Not believe him and you are free to leave the room, think no more about it, and get on with your life. Many have chosen this route.

Believe him, or at least suspect there is more to the story to be uncovered, and you will search for that one allusive combination of mechanics that could achieve what Bessler described. And you will go down many dead ends, and be fatigued at times, and probably sacrifice much, the least of which is time. But nothing more will be asked of you than Bessler himself was prepared to endure to find his answer to mechanical "True PM'.

Your biggest enemy is your own mind.

OU is only possible via an effective N3 break. The reason no one's found it by accident is because effective N3 breaks require artifice - they can't exist in natural equilibria, but have to be designed and invented.

Bessler showed that they can be. He could only have accomplished this by focusing on capturing and entraining the vis viva - the terminology is almost irrelevant; there's nothing quaint about the dependence of CoE upon CoM, and you don't need to grasp their distinction to discover that such 'reactionless' or pseudo-reactionless momentum somehow has more 'go' than the regular variety.. esp. when accumulated..

From the man himself:

Even Wagner, wherever he is now, will have heard that one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound. He writes that, to date, no one has
ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required
task. He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why? What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: "Now I understand!�

..its solution is not that the answer is somehow something 'non-mechanical' (as i have posited in the past), but simply that it has nothing whatsoever to do with a GPE advantage...


Wagner is right that GPE asymmetries are impossible.

Bessler never claimed otherwise! In fact he expressly elaborates precisely this point, in multiple instances..

The solution is mechanical OU. Mechanical energy is speed-dependent. The reference frame of that speed - and thus the corresponding energy value - depends upon Newton's 3rd law.

But you don't need to understand any of that just to conceive of the principle of voiding counter-momentum, and accumulating the results..

[MrVibrating]

Been trying to eliminate the power spikes.

Whatever the outcome, a nice smooth waveform's a lot easier to swallow than one ending in a 5 MW blip..

I've managed this before in an orbiting FoR, but it's been doing my nut in this time, dunno why.. getting there tho..

Just want the radial accelerations / decelerations to gently halt / change directions, instead of slamming into a wall..

Closest i'm getting so far looks like this:



Actuator P*t: 23.6738 J

CF/CP P*t 23.72598 J

Gain's tinier now, still uncertain if i'm getting rid of 'error' or real gain condition yet, curve shape's asymmetric now so it's different data, rather than simply the previous run cleaned up. The old baby / bathwater dilemma..

[MrVibrating]

Here's how you get to OU from 1st principles, with a 'naive' grasp of physics:

- after years of very persistent failure, in the face of ever-more ingenious exploits, it becomes apparent that the search for a GPE asymmetry is up against something more fundamental than mere ingenuity

- so you think about motion itself. How to self-perpetuate it?

- the desired impetus to rotate must come from within the wheel itself

- therefore motion induced via torque applied at the axle is inherently the 'wrong kind' of motion to be investigating

- motion induced directly to the wheel - in a closed-system of interacting masses about a common axis, a la N1 - can only mean collecting momentum from gravity. Anything else is just a wobbler - you might increase its KE, but you cannot increase its momentum - its real 'motion'

- so success in inducing this statorless motion is already playing with an effective N3 break

- once you HAVE an effective N3 break, you basically can't move WITHOUT making excess KE..

[silent]

.

[MrVibrating]

So here's that same sim from last night - using a new type of control method for the MoI variation (controlling velocity rather than length, and limiting the extremes of acceleration):



..if anyone downloaded the last one, the only change here is that the frequency has been set to 1 kHz, and the system has been allowed to loop for five cycles. Because, 'five', innit.

Remember - this sim's reporting as close as we've got so far to unity for a single cycle, even though that's come at the expense of a reduced net energy and momentum yield. But for a single cycle, simmed at very high freq., it's only very very slightly OU, if at all..

Also, bear in mind that the exact same metrics have been used to measure and conclude all the other, unity, results, too - all that's changed in the 'OU' variations is that the input CF integral is on the descending side, before gravity's finished accelerating the system, rather than on the rising side, after it's hit max speed.

Again, the whole point of this particular modification is that when the vMoI masses are pushed back in after max speed per-cycle is reached, the cost invariably rises by the square of the rising velocity.

It is precisely those resulting unity outcomes that i'm referring to now. They're all measured exactly the same way. All that's changed above is that we've completed our inertial interaction before the GPE output's finished..

..and we immediately start measuring persistent OU, from those very same meters...

So, the above five cycles cooked up 117.64130 J of final net KE.

Of that, one-eighth of a Joule was used to kick-start the action, so:

• 117.64130 - 0.12500 = 117.5163 J is the net energy rise.

• CF P*t = 116.79168 J


..so we've a little more KE than work done, but not much to get excited about.

So, how much energy did the actuators draw?

• Act. P*t = 62.67846 J


The attempts to get rid of this thing are lapsing into farce. I do apologise, terrible bore, not giving up the day job etc. but i appear to be a bit crap at this..

Anyone else able to take data - or better yet, independently measure this interaction - further input would be appreciated..

..happy to consider any reasonable ideas..