Decoupling Per-Cycle Momemtum Yields From RPM

[Senax]

I just want to say I enjoy reading your posts. I read each and everyone one of them and I like your systematic approach to everything!

I'm in-between builds at the moment - not quite sure how to proceed. Bessler talked about combining several MTs to find a movement. I've combed the MTs over and over and I'm sorry, but I just don't see any combination of anything that would work...at least the obvious simple weight-displacement stuff. I mean we do have some pendulum stuff going on which is kind of unexplored territory. MT51 talks about a movement in a faulty matter, but he never discounts pendulums. One of the other threads here recently discussed using a pendulum with a rolling weight inside that weighed 25% of the entire pendulum weight so that as the pendulum went to the end of it's travel, the little weight would roll to the other side of the pendulum and this would create the same effect as when a kid on a swing pumps it to go higher. It would obviously have to be tuned for this to work, but it's something I want to try next.

Bessler talked about many pieces of lead and how weights came to rest one against the other and so I get to thinking about something as simple at MT48 and 49 - the ball conveyors - which people seem to avoid. All the attempts seem to involve everything being tied together, but I don't see anyone experimenting with independent weights and maybe rightly so, but remember Bessler said in MT48 "....completely different structures bless this marriage..." Now that might be key because we have weights that are coming to rest one against another and they are going on and on exchanging places, but we need completely different structures to bless this marriage which indicates to me that there is something key about uniting a couple of mechanisms...a marriage if you will.

Anyway, back to thinking. I enjoy your insights and hopefully some day it will spark resolution to this most mysterious of problems.
silent

Talking of ball conveyors you should try replicating Bruce's Uncle's machine.
I believe it worked since it was basically producing 3rd derivative energy in its
three dimensional whirlpool descent and only requiring 1st derivative energy to
take the marbles back up to the top, thus maintaining a continuous flow of marbles..

[Fletcher]

No probs MrV .. I really admire your determination to get to the bottom of the Bessler mystery. Few have publicly and consistently put in as much original theorizing and thinking effort in to it imo. I hope you find a way to crack it.

Yep, static torque seems the only way for a statorless wheel to start rotating, where Everything Goes Around Together - inescapable conclusion. So it has an important place in the scheme of things.

I would suggest that all the lw in-series hung together principles of MT are fundamentally depicted the same way i.e. like a representation of peacocks tail. (And they're mainly the ones with the side notes about correct handle constructions and special nature of SB's, Prime Movers etc - a pattern ?). Yet if they were stationary reps they wouldn't look like that at all. And if they were rotating (dynamic reps) at a constant speed, with Cf's, the up-going side would not look like drawn either. So widely misses the mark for rendition accuracy in regards to hoped for outcomes imo. Other drawings are 'anatomically' correct however in contrast, so normally I'd expect style to be consistent. Dear I say it but even MT12 has a message imo. Not in what it shows but in how he says it. There we see an external ramp and just about all of us instantly recognise how futile that approach is. But Bessler gives it the same air time as the preceding 10 & 11, and tells us with sincerity that contact with the ramp causes a great shaking - kinda redundant and imo way too much information for an obvious unworkable device I would think; unless ramp effects in a wider sense do factor in the greater scheme of things ?! Just my opinions.

A little ostriching never hurt anyone, least of all the ostrich ;7) Best as always.

[WaltzCee]

Fletcher wrote:

What if the intrinsic start up and acceleration up to working speed for a mechanical gravity wheel was purely due to average positive imbalance state i.e. a CoG that is displaced to one side of the axle. That would also fit your analytical criteria and expression. So if a mechanical way could be found to achieve that then it could also be ruled in as a possibility. Absence of evidence and all that.

purely due to average positive imbalance state
is a positive Feedback Loop.
Then the System is self accelerating.
In the bi directional Wheel, the first Impact shifts the CoG sidewards to one side of the non existing axle, and it stays on the falling side.

If the cause is gravity and the effect is the wheel turning how does the effect of a turning
wheel positively or negatively feedback into gravity?
If the effect is a swinging pendulum, the cause is still gravity. Please do not Tinker with
gravity. Our butts are in enough of a sling with global warming, Etc.

[Fletcher]

I think Walt that Georg was talking about a mechanical feedback loop that leads to an accelerating wheel, up to working speed.

Perhaps the Carrier and the Prime Mover reaching a resonance frequency as I see it.

If the cause is gravity and the effect is the wheel turning how does the effect of a turning
wheel positively or negatively feedback into gravity?

So if the feedback loop is purely mechanical, as I believe it is, then gravity is unaffected. It is still an encompassing field of potential, an acceleration, that gives rise to the turning of the wheel with usable RKE. n.b. as said earlier the math for Energy Input imo can't currently be distilled from Newtonian Physics. So there would be no/zero impact on the gravity field i.e. it's potential would remain undiminished, imo.

Of course the Laws of Thermodynamics are going to have a fit, but that was always going to happen if anyone ever discovered a true mechanical PMM harnessed to gravity force.

[WaltzCee]

I think Walt that Georg was talking about a mechanical feedback loop that leads to an accelerating wheel, up to working speed.

Perhaps the Carrier and the Prime Mover reaching a resonance frequency as I see it.

That sounds like a random event. At the risk of being termed a
naysayer, the way this generally happens is you have to know the
frequency of the prime mover and the carrier. Then you calculate the
difference. And then you add as much frequency to the prime mover
as is necessary to bring it to some resonant frequency. From what I
understand that's generally how it's engineered.

Could be it's the Shake Rattle and Roll method. What the heck do I
know, I'm no expert. An ex is a has-been and a spurt is a drip under
pressure.

[ME]

Here possibly another nay-sayer*:
In order to eventually bring an unstable situation (like George's proposal) into resonance (the addition of fresh oscillations) with a wheel that can rotate at an arbitrary/variable rotational frequency one needs to deploy some active control mechanism that provides the forced positive feedback mechanism --> iow. power consuming*.
The same as illustrated with the passive hopper ([link]), randomness in frequency and conditions can be sought, found and exploited. But because of unstable situations it will sooner or later tend to find a stable position, which is unfortunately not* the resonant frequency.
The situation where such does happen 'automatically' is with passively swinging pendulums or with vertical beams like flag poles. There the resonant frequency is found automatically because excitation yanks it out of the stable position while it wanted to stay there.
Easy to assume* the passive situation works equally for the active situation.

*) I disclaim: We all look for the exception (or, "that condition would be the Holy Grail"-Fletcher), but it's not anyone's fault it usually works the way it does.
To agree with and quote a self-proclaimed forum yes-sayer: You need a wheel to show it works (or not) - Silent.

...
Hence the question for perpetual motion: is it possible to find a positive feed-back mechanism that's able to do its work passively.

[MrVibrating]

I just want to say I enjoy reading your posts. I read each and everyone one of them and I like your systematic approach to everything!

Thank you sir, your on-point thoughts are likewise appreciated.

I'm in-between builds at the moment - not quite sure how to proceed. Bessler talked about combining several MTs to find a movement. I've combed the MTs over and over and I'm sorry, but I just don't see any combination of anything that would work...at least the obvious simple weight-displacement stuff.

There's no need to search for an energy-producing principle, because:

a) It's already found; accumulating reactionless momentum is an inherently OU process, because it depends upon the 'EMGAT' principle / statorless operation, hence every discrete acceleration imbued to any internal masses is, by definition, applied from an initial relative velocity of 'zero' between the part being accelerated, and whatever that force is being applied against (ie. the wheel body / net system); we thus know from KE=½mV² (or its angular equiv.) that the resulting energy cost of momentum can only be ½ J per kg-m/s (or per kg-m²-rad/s); further allowing for the implicit loss of half the momentum per cycle indicated by the Toys page's concern with '5 cycles' (which logically can only pertain to counter-momentum destroyed or sunk to gravity), Bessler's energy cost of momentum must've been 1 J per kg-m²-rad/s.

Accordingly, 10 such accelerations of a 1 kg-m² angular inertia buys 10 kg-m²-rad/s for 10 Joules, at which speed it actually has 50 J of rotational KE!


So there's simply no need to look for any further means of generating energy. It's right there before you. Just accelerate some mass/ inertia without counter-accelerating anything else, then knock it into an equal inertia inelastically, so that they both end up at equal speed, and then repeat that cycle a few times; you're now creating KE, in full accordance with all laws of physics and conservation.

But also, consider that:

b) There simply are no further possibilities! In all of mechanics, we have just two fundamental types of interactions: inertial interactions - that is, a force is applied between two or more inertias - and gravitational interactions, where a mass is lifted and dropped. Everything else - from springs to pendulums to even chemical energies and EM interactions - are just variations on those two elementary interactions.

We know that the latter - gravitational interactions - are composed of just three fields; mass, height and gravity.. and we also know that all three are time-invariant; 1 kg is always 1 kg, 1 meter is always 1 meter, and gravity at sea-level is always 9.80665 m/s²... hence the very notion of 'energy-gain from gravity' is a non-sequitir; oxymoronic; a misnomer; "not even wrong" as scientists like to say of ill-conceived theories. It's simply not an internally-consistent notion. Everyone is quite right to dismiss out of hand any suggestion to the contrary. Energy from gravity - asymmetric gravitational interactions per se - are not possible and cannot explain Bessler's success.


Which just leaves the possibility of asymmetric inertial interactions...

...and everything about B.'s wheels - all of the available evidence, both from him and from independent witnesses - is exclusively consistent with this possibility.

So there is no mystery, no question nor room for a shadow of doubt that asymmetric inertial interactions / accumulating reactionless momentum is the form of the solution!

Looking elsewhere is completely pointless, redundant, and futile. You'll just end up scratching a hole in yer head, cos there is no respite there to be found!

Honestly, just run through some reactionless 'accelerate & brake' cycles on paper, and you'll immediately begin to see the magic happening..

I mean we do have some pendulum stuff going on which is kind of unexplored territory. MT51 talks about a movement in a faulty matter, but he never discounts pendulums.

..if you'd only stepped through the simple maths i keep advising, you'd be seeing MT 51 in terms of an interaction between "two equal angular inertias, one of which is also subject to gravity", coupled via a ratchet (ie. the interaction's directional).

MT 51's weakness is the subject of this very thread topic; the faster it gets, the less time per cycle the pendulum spends gravitating in either upwards or downwards strokes, hence the per-cycle momentum yield necessarily decreases with RPM.

This self-limiting dynamic is near-universal... were it not for the fact that we have strong circumstantial evidence to suspect these diametric weight levers may be the key to overcoming it..

One of the other threads here recently discussed using a pendulum with a rolling weight inside that weighed 25% of the entire pendulum weight so that as the pendulum went to the end of it's travel, the little weight would roll to the other side of the pendulum and this would create the same effect as when a kid on a swing pumps it to go higher. It would obviously have to be tuned for this to work, but it's something I want to try next.

Good stuff, for my part (from what i understand from your description alone), the internal rolling weight will be changing radius from the pendulum's axis, and thus inputting and outputting work to and from centrifugal force; gaining momentum equal to the net work done against CF force, as we do when operating a swing; again, as speed rises, so does the magnitude of CF force (equal to mass times radius by angular velocity squared), hence the per-cycle energy cost of momentum rises with speed, and for a given per-cycle input energy, the momentum yield thus decreases - again, this central self-limiting dynamic i'm attempting to address in this thread.

Bessler talked about many pieces of lead and how weights came to rest one against the other and so I get to thinking about something as simple at MT48 and 49 - the ball conveyors - which people seem to avoid. All the attempts seem to involve everything being tied together, but I don't see anyone experimenting with independent weights and maybe rightly so, but remember Bessler said in MT48 "....completely different structures bless this marriage..." Now that might be key because we have weights that are coming to rest one against another and they are going on and on exchanging places, but we need completely different structures to bless this marriage which indicates to me that there is something key about uniting a couple of mechanisms...a marriage if you will.

MT 48 applies an uninflected 'A' to the wheel body, thus denoting it is an output, or driven rather than a 'driver'.

MT 49 reverses this role; the wheel drives the paternoster.

Both couple angular lifts with radial drops, and vice versa.

Both depend upon stators (the paternosters), so are not consistent with the EMGAT principle and cannot isolate their system momentum from the outside world, hence cannot undergo reference frame divergence or break energy unity.

In both cases, energy 'up' is equal to energy 'down'..

..however, both are concerned with coupling angular vs radial (or 'linear') lifts vs drops.. and this is noteworthy, since an angular drop with a radial lift means the weights spend more time gravitating on their descent than when rising; conversely, an angular lift with radial / linear descent means the weights spend more time shedding momentum to gravity when rising, than they do gaining momentum from it whilst falling..

This is not to say that either is capable of furnishing a closed-loop momentum gain (or loss), since as noted, they're dependent upon a stator and so cannot isolate their system momentum..

..but the general principle of radial lifts w/ angular drops without recourse to a stator, is what we all know as 'classic OB' - and that does gain (or lose) momentum from / to gravity over a closed-loop, cumulatively so over successive cycles..

Anyway, back to thinking. I enjoy your insights and hopefully some day it will spark resolution to this most mysterious of problems.

silent

As ever, there's no mystery there sir - you can de-mystify the whole concept of KE gains right here this afternoon; all you need is Notepad, Calculator, the standard KE equations, plus the single indulgence of a cyclic reactionless acceleration..

Seriously, try it out for yourself and you'll see the problem simply solves itself - you 'make KE' using the standard KE equations. "Excess KE" is a contradiction in terms - a moving mass only has so much KE, no more or less, regardless of its provenance. Trying to even envisage mechanical OU in any other terms is a hiding to nowhere..

[Fletcher]

Let's see if I can cherry pick a few comments that might help focus the problem.

...

Hence the question for perpetual motion: is it possible to find a positive feed-back mechanism that's able to do its work passively.

If B's. PM principle was based solely on mechanical principles and gravity force alone i.e. a gravity wheel, then no other conclusion is possible ME. Its innate state is dynamic rotation, and it requires no 'active/excitation/positive energy input' to keep it continuing in this state of natural motion. Is it possible to find a passive positive feedback mechanical arrangement ? Probably. It's just mechanics and leverage after all. "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.� - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Bessler talked about combining several MTs to find a movement. I've combed the MTs over and over and I'm sorry, but I just don't see any combination of anything that would work...at least the obvious simple weight-displacement stuff.

There's no need to search for an energy-producing principle, because:

a) It's already found; accumulating reactionless momentum is an inherently OU process, because it depends upon the 'EMGAT' principle / statorless operation, ...

So there's simply no need to look for any further means of generating energy. It's right there before you. Just accelerate some mass/ inertia without counter-accelerating anything else, ...

But also, consider that:

b) There simply are no further possibilities! In all of mechanics, we have just two fundamental types of interactions: inertial interactions - that is, a force is applied between two or more inertias - and gravitational interactions, where a mass is lifted and dropped. Everything else - from springs to pendulums to even chemical energies and EM interactions - are just variations on those two elementary interactions.

We know that the latter - gravitational interactions - are composed of just three fields; mass, height and gravity.. and we also know that all three are time-invariant; 1 kg is always 1 kg, 1 meter is always 1 meter, and gravity at sea-level is always 9.80665 m/s²... hence the very notion of 'energy-gain from gravity' is a non-sequitir; oxymoronic; a misnomer; "not even wrong" as scientists like to say of ill-conceived theories. It's simply not an internally-consistent notion. Everyone is quite right to dismiss out of hand any suggestion to the contrary. Energy from gravity - asymmetric gravitational interactions per se - are not possible and cannot explain Bessler's success.

Which just leaves the possibility of asymmetric inertial interactions...

Where I agree with MrV's analysis is that we effectively need to accumulate, not so much reactionless momentum, as less cost momentum. From either the inertial or gravitational interaction approach. I personally leave the door firmly open for gravitational interaction until inertial is positively proven beyond doubt. And that's what these discussions and airing of alternate views are about for me ATEOTD.

ETA: maybe more than one road leads to Rome, but I suspect only one will.

[MrVibrating]

No probs MrV .. I really admire your determination to get to the bottom of the Bessler mystery. Few have publicly and consistently put in as much original theorizing and thinking effort in to it imo. I hope you find a way to crack it.

Thank you sir - the compulsion is simply knowing that a solution's possible. That the game isn't rigged against us..

The 'one more try' attitude would be sheer madness otherwise..

Yep, static torque seems the only way for a statorless wheel to start rotating, where Everything Goes Around Together - inescapable conclusion. So it has an important place in the scheme of things.

I would suggest that all the lw in-series hung together principles of MT are fundamentally depicted the same way i.e. like a representation of peacocks tail. (And they're mainly the ones with the side notes about correct handle constructions and special nature of SB's, Prime Movers etc - a pattern ?). Yet if they were stationary reps they wouldn't look like that at all. And if they were rotating (dynamic reps) at a constant speed, with Cf's, the up-going side would not look like drawn either. So widely misses the mark for rendition accuracy in regards to hoped for outcomes imo. Other drawings are 'anatomically' correct however in contrast, so normally I'd expect style to be consistent. Dear I say it but even MT12 has a message imo. Not in what it shows but in how he says it. There we see an external ramp and just about all of us instantly recognise how futile that approach is. But Bessler gives it the same air time as the preceding 10 & 11, and tells us with sincerity that contact with the ramp causes a great shaking - kinda redundant and imo way too much information for an obvious unworkable device I would think; unless ramp effects in a wider sense do factor in the greater scheme of things ?! Just my opinions.

A little ostriching never hurt anyone, least of all the ostrich ;7) Best as always.

MT 12 is the first instance of the letter 'A' - and noting that the following woodcut MT 13 is the first instance of any other lettering ('B, C & D'), which are (presumably accidentally) back-to-front (easy mistake to fall into, since 'A' is vertically symmetrical), if the 'inflected' vs 'uninflected' convention is already being used, then being uninflected implies that the ramp is not an 'input' or 'driver' - as might be hoped for..

..following on to MT 16 we see the first instance of an inflected 'A', applied to masses pulled outwards - which would apply negative inertial torque, clearly not an 'input' - hence implying that the intended input is simply OB torque.

Hence i think MT 12 - along with all the earlier MT's - is just showing us stuff that doesn't work.. MT begins by eliminating the futile, and develops into refining principles that may be more useful..


What's really driving me here is not the search for 'what works' - since we already know conclusively that accumulating reactionless momentum does... Hence all i'm focused on is how to accumulate reactionless momentum.

In short, it is no longer a 'physics problem', so much as an engineering one..

[MrVibrating]

Where I agree with MrV's analysis is that we effectively need to accumulate, not so much reactionless momentum, as less cost momentum. From either the inertial or gravitational interaction approach. I personally leave the door firmly open for gravitational interaction until inertial is positively proven beyond doubt. And that's what these discussions and airing of alternate views are about for me ATEOTD.

Yes you're absolutely right; the energy exploit is, as Wolff deduced, from "some fluid [..] beyond the senses" - that is, the Higgs field that provides the 'stopping power' / potential to perform work substantiating the 'm' in the ½mV² equation. Specifically, 'inertia'.

This is the same field others are trying to access via "EVO's" and exotic EM / Casimir effects... we're basically aiming for the same thing, just by waving some masses around in a gravity field. Slightly more steampunk, but same deal.

And we get there by sinking momentum to gravity - the same place momentum always goes to when we chuck a mass upwards, so little new there.

Again, apply a force between two equal inertias, one of which is also gravitating; gravity thus absorbs the counter-momentum, and so only the other inertia is accelerated. Then that 'accelerated' inertia is collided with the non-accelerated one, bringing both to a uniform momentum rise, and now moving at equal speed, stationary to one another, and so resetting the 'V²' component in the ½mV² energy-cost-of-momentum.

So yes, the energy trick is simply discounted momentum - buying it on the cheap, by constantly resetting the relative speed between 'rotor' and 'stator' to zero following every reactionless accelerate-and-brake cycle.

"RotKE=½Iw²" sets the energy cost of a 1 rad/s acceleration of a 1 kg-m² inertia at ½ J.

If we also have to counter-accelerate another 1 kg-m² inertia in the opposite direction in order to do that, then our total input energy per cycle is 1 J.

If we then sink that counter-momentum portion to gravity, we've lost half a Joule, that we don't get back. Hence we've paid 1 J to gain 1 kg-m²-rad/s of angular momentum.

Inelastically colliding / braking that gained momentum back against the 'stator' that sunk its counter-momentum to gravity, we end the cycle with two 1 kg-m² inertias rotating together at ½ rad/s, so possessing a net system KE of ¼ J - a 75% loss of the 1 J so far invested.

But the relative speed between them is now zero..

..hence the input energy cost of another 1 rad/s acceleration is again, 1 J - the cycle simply repeats; ending the second cycle with a total input energy thus far of 2 J, and two 1 kg-m² inertias rotating together at an equal speed of 1 rad/s, hence having a net system energy of 1 J, so a current efficiency of 50% - up 25% from the previous cycle.

Repeating a third identical cycle takes us to 3 J net input, for 2.25 J of net KE - so 75% efficiency, up another 25% from the second cycle.

After a fourth such cycle we arrive at 4 J in, for 4 J of rotKE.

A fifth takes us to 5 J in, for 6.25 J of rotKE (two 1 kg-m² inertias rotating at 2.5 rad/s). 125% of unity.

So when harnessing this gain, we're taking energy out of the Higgs field..

..and we're doing so by dumping counter-momentum into the gravity field.

Where did the counter-momentum ultimately go? Gravity is a uniform acceleration.. but more specifically, one that applies to masses; and accelerated mass = change in velocity = change in momentum; hence gravity is an effective source and sink of momentum - an ambient time-rate-of-change of momentum.

We do not currently have a confirmed quantum of gravity, hence here the trail goes cold, for us at least. But we do have a quantum of inertia, and that's the Higgs interaction. So the energy gain definitely comes at the expense of the vacuum potential underwriting the strength of the Higgs interaction; it's parceled-up in positive and negative signed units of h-bar, mediated by the Higgs boson.

In normal, symmetric inertial interactions, the momentum and energy input to the Higgs / vacuum potential is equal to that output. But here, we're not giving its fair share back, instead skimming off half of it - the counter-momentum - to gravity, whilst still collecting the full compliment back from the Higgs.

Hence the source is the Higgs field, and the sink is gravity.

This in turn implies that the quantum of gravity - whatever its nature - is not the same ambient quantum momentum as manifested by the Higgs - a seemingly-clear-cut argument against the existence of the 'graviton' as a potential gauge boson mooted by the basic standard model..

We could ramble all day down this rabbit hole but who are we kidding, this ain't our domain, we're miles off-piste, it's for the cosmologists and quantum theorists to resolve..

..but we'll certainly be throwing 'em a nice bone!

Besides the nature of gravity, at issue here is that of time itself, and the nature of the obvious interaction between them..

..we know from GR that the rate of time is inversely proportional to the gravitational density..

But this is all way beyond our paygrade. We know we can apply a 9.81 N force between two vertical weights, causing one to plummet at 2 G whilst the other hovers stationary in mid-air; an asymmetric inertial interaction sinking counter-momentum to gravity. kids stuff. We also know we can gain momentum from gravity, such as on a park swing. Again, kids stuff. So gravity-over-time as a source and sink of momentum is not controversial.

Likewise, the KE equation, and its enumeration of the cost and value of momentum, is no controversy.

All we're doing is stitching those two things together; sinking counter-momentum to gravity, and then colliding / braking the resulting momentum gain on the 'rotor' back into our co-rotating 'stator', thus equalising their speed and so returning to the bottom of the V² multiplier on the energy cost of further such accelerate-and-brake cycles..


Everyone here should be au fait on the energy-gain principle by now - there simply is no mystery, at least at the mechanical level. The more fundamental realisations regarding the deeper natures of time, gravity and inertia are beyond our remit..

[MrVibrating]

..So ploughing onwards, let's come back to these diametric weight levers:

• we know we could have a net system MoI about the wheel's axis that is equal to that of one of its diametric weight levers

• so, what if we applied a force, or torque, between one weight lever, and the wheel / net system?

• without gravity, each angular inertia would be accelerated to equal speeds in opposite directions, for zero change in momentum

• however if the diametric lever weight is also gravitating, but the wheel itself is not, then only the wheel will be accelerated!

Note that this is simply an angular version of the "apply a 9.81 N force between two vertical weights in freefall" interaction..

..it's also the very first interaction demonstrated in post #1 of this thread..

..the only difference being that the 'stator' is now a diametric lever weight, instead of a radial one.

Recall that in that first demonstration, the issue was that the time available per-cycle for sinking counter-momentum to gravity - and thus for raising 'positive' momentum - was necessarily decreasing with rising RPM..

.hence the thread topic, of how to stabilise per-cycle momentum yields in spite of rising RPM's..

It's been a somewhat circuitous route to arrive at such a trifling detail change, having been led here via further analysis of the Toys page and MT 133 / 134, but to put it in as pithy a context as possible; could we use these diametric lever weights as transient 'stators', against which to torque the net system about the central axis?


Follow through that suggestion, and it becomes apparent that the 'excess impetus' with which the weights impact upon the descending side of the wheel, might actually have been imbued to the wheel itself, rather than to the falling weights!

In other words, perhaps, within the context of the rotating reference frame, the 'bangs' were caused by the wheel colliding with the lever weights, rather than the other way around..?

..something that might at first seem unintuitive, but which seems to make more sense the more one chews it over..


So maybe the radial GPE drop is used to apply a force / torque between one diametric lever weight at a time, vs the rest of the wheel? This seems conceptually straightforward enough to test with a sim..

..remember, the sole objective - the real make-or-break condition - is not whether or not momentum can be repeatedly applied in this manner (which already seems a foregone conclusion), but specifically whether this will finally overcome the usual constraint of per-cycle momentum yields necessarily diminishing with rising RPM's..

So this is what i'll be testing for in the next batch of sims..

[Senax]

...
We know that the latter - gravitational interactions - are composed of just three fields; mass, height and gravity.. and we also know that all three are time-invariant; 1 kg is always 1 kg, 1 meter is always 1 meter, and gravity at sea-level is always 9.80665 m/s²... hence the very notion of 'energy-gain from gravity' is a non-sequitir; oxymoronic; a misnomer; "not even wrong" as scientists like to say of ill-conceived theories. It's simply not an internally-consistent notion. Everyone is quite right to dismiss out of hand any suggestion to the contrary. Energy from gravity - asymmetric gravitational interactions per se - are not possible and cannot explain Bessler's success.
...

I agree with that. We cannot get energy from Newtonian Gravity (NG).
But we can get energy from Ersatz Gravity (EG) and every day I get a little
bit closer to understanding how.

I think we are probably saying the same think MrV but are approaching
the problem from different directions. I feel the same about Bessler as
George V felt about Bognor.

I wish everyone on this forum would dismiss the idea of getting energy
from NG but I fear that many don't.

[MrVibrating]

Not a great deal of progress yesterday - spent a while just playing with rotations in me head; pointless to waste time diving into a badly thought-out sim.. noted the following points:

• if the radial GPE drops, moving the diametric levers in any direction, then 90° later that radial GPE is now undergoing an angular lift; ie. the system is under-balanced, not over-balanced.

This mightn't be a problem if we're going to be getting energy gain - the GPE has to be re-input, after all - however if the over-balance of Bessler's one-way wheels isn't in evidence in a minimalist version of the mechanism, then it must be due to some further, additional parts, complicating the 'complete' mechanism..

Furthermore however:

• rotating another 90°, we're now upside-down relative to our starting angle, so now the radial GPE is ready to drop a second time..

Bessler indeed mentioned two power strokes per revolution, so this would seem consistent, except that:

• on this second drop, the diametric levers would now be rotated back the other way.. so producing counter-torques equal and opposite to those of the first half of the cycle.. cancelling them out!

So, how could the same radial GPE be lifted and dropped twice per full turn, whilst only pulling unidirectional torques from the diametric weight levers?

There only seems to be one solution here:

• the radial GPE drops, moving the diametric levers apart - that is, one moves 'up', the other, 'down'

Since they're pivoted to opposite sides of the rim, this actually means they're both rotating in the same direction, so inducing counter-torques in the same direction back to the wheel / net system

Rotating 90° we'd still have the under-balance rather than over-balance, and another 90° after that, we'd again be inducing cancelling torques from the levers with a second GPE drop..

But what if the diametric levers are reset every 90°? So, 'open them up' while horizontal, and thus, gravitating - which should sink their counter-torques to gravity (hopefully), then close 'em up, back together 90° later whilst vertical, so, not gravitating, thus inducing mutually-cancelling counter-torques, to be re-opened again another 90° later, now upside-down and hence gravitating again?


The diametric weight levers are, individually, unbalanced, terminating as they do in those heavy bobs, so perhaps moving them one way when horizontal, and then back the other way when vertical, might rectify consistent torques / momenta from their alternating gravitating vs non-gravitating angles..?


I still can't work out how to apply the radial GPE to produce over-balance tho.. 'radial drop with angular lift' - and thus, consistent under-balance - seems like the only option.


If anyone else has any thoughts, do share - this is just 'MT 40-ish' - a radial GPE, coupled to a pair of opposing diametric weight levers. Under / over balance isn't the primary objective, so much as rectifying consistent torques from those diametric levers.


Another, further point also comes to mind, which is that if each weight lever has an MoI equal to that of the net system, but both are operated together as a pair, then their MoI ratio relative to that of the wheel is combined, hence 2:1, not 1:1.. and since 1:1 is the ideal ratio, we'd have double the overhead for adding more mass / MoI to the wheel / net system - so can fit 'more stuff' inside, without sacrificing optimal efficiency..

Might knock up another doodle of this later, just to give a visual reference. Seriously, when trying to do these rotations in my head i inevitably end up trying to model them with my hands - if anyone saw me staring at my hands whilst making these strange wrist movements, you'd be forgiven for thinking i was on something..

[MrVibrating]

..further couple of points:

• if indeed the diametric levers move apart and then back together, then one's being lifted, the other dropped.. point being, we'd be getting unidirectional torques, but without a change in the GPE of the levers. Only the radial GPE load activating them would be changing height, not the center of mass of the levers themselves..

Also, however:

• we know Bessler removed any images of the working mech - so maybe pairing the diametric levers as they're depicted so consistently throughout MT is a red herring - maybe they're better implemented one at a time, or at 90° to one another, rather than the 180° pairing he kept drawing them at

Or likewise, maybe they are to be paired at 180° apart as depicted, but only operated by the radial GPE one at a time, at 180° intervals of wheel rotation, etc. - there's not really that many permutations possible, maybe less that half a dozen worth considering.. one of 'em has to consistently torque the system whilst sinking counter-torques to gravity.

[MrVibrating]

..and, just for a refresher, here's a very quick visual reference for the concept of "sinking counter-forces to gravity":




Here, gravity's enabled, and on the left side a 9.81 N force is applied vertically between two 1 kg masses in 'free-fall', causing the upper one to hover stationary in mid-air, whilst the lower one plummets at 2G.

On the right side we see an angular version of the same thing - two identical pendulums, both with 1 kg bobs and 1 kg shafts; so the red one wants to drop downwards, but is being held aloft by counter-torque from a motor at the axis, propelling the green one downwards at twice its passive gravitational acceleration.


In both cases, the green masses are gaining twice as much momentum as they would from a passive fall over equal distance; half of it from gravity, but the other half, from the internally-applied force / torque...

..and it is this latter portion that is 'reactionless' - ie. a force has been applied between two equal masses, but accelerating only one of them.

Remembering that gravity is an ambient, constant, time rate of change of momentum, we could devise further tricks (such as applying inertial torque via the ice-skater effect) to re-lift the green masses in equal or less time than they spent falling, and hence re-paying a minimum of momentum back to gravity.. whilst pocketing all of the momentum we applied internally - such as via inelastic collisions with the red masses - and hence consolidating a rise in net system momentum on a per-cycle basis.

Obviously, both these simplistic examples fall foul of the very point this thread is intended to address - if net system momentum were to be built up over successive cycles this way, the time / distance spent gravitating per cycle would diminish in inverse proportion, hence the energy cost of momentum would still be squaring up with velocity..

..so the objective is to work out how Bessler overcame this seemingly fundamental constraint, which, presumably, somehow seems to involve these diametric weight levers, coupled to radial GPE's.. Capisce?