Is there any way in which someone could use the gravitational slingshot formula that was used by NASA and other space exploration agencies and somehow work backward from the the actual to determine a working formula that assumes a alternative gravitational assumption that fits the outcomes that are considered anomalies. Could you then replace the incorrect Newtonian formula into WM or other simulation program and model outcomes based upon that.
It just seems so silly to me that the normal course of business to trying to find this answer involves the use of laws of motion that clearly must be wrong in order for the concept to work. If we believe that the wheel is possible then why are we constantly using conservation laws to determine validity if the existence of our success would invalidate those same laws. I don't think Bessler could have ever imagined it would be this difficult to figure out. Clearly by his design he was trying to make it hard but somehow in his mind it should have been possible. But I don't believe he at that time fathomed the depth to which Newton would go to solidify his place in science and forever harm the advancement of the technology. We have been sold a convenient lie by Newton and his followers for far to long. If you have a working wheel it will unravel the very basic laws that we have based 300 years worth of experimentation on.
But anyway.
IMHO gravity does not exist, its a farce. STOP trying to build a gravity wheel.
Crazy Dave
MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code
Moderator: scott
-
FunWithGravity2
- Devotee
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:32 pm
re: MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code
Si mobile in circumferentia circuli feratur ea celeritate, quam acquirit cadendo ex
altitudine, quae sit quartae parti diameter aequalis ; habebit vim centrifugam suae
gravitati aequalem.
altitudine, quae sit quartae parti diameter aequalis ; habebit vim centrifugam suae
gravitati aequalem.
re: MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code
I thought I'd pull out further extracts from Wollf's letters to consider.
Bill's quote above is from the first of 1715.
I include the 1722 correspondence for comparison. Bolding, underlining etc is done by me for effect.
... 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. 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 ...
- Christian Wolff, letter to Leibniz, examination of Merseburg wheel, 19th December, 1715.
In this first letter Wolff kind of follows the scientific principle we know today. Observe, form a theory, and attempt to prove it. It was a pity he didn't include more 'facts' but at the time he probably didn't think it that relevant to do so. The weights (~ 4 lb cylindrical shape) were attached to some moveable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel. The weights could be heard impacting against short boards. He saw (the arms) thru a crack in the covering. He does not say that he saw these arms when the wheel was in motion or when it was stationary ? Unlikely to be in motion because others would have commented on it also, and the inside would have been dark, and it was moving quickly. Even stationary he'd need to crane his neck to get his eye to the crack and let his eye adjust to the dim light available. So stationary seems likely. Pity he didn't hold up his phone and use the torch and take a pic eh.
We have to allow for possible translation nuances, so we don't know whether the arms which were moveable or elastic faced inwards, or outwards. He says 'on' the periphery which if taken literally means the rim and so you'd possibly think they were pointing inwards. And since he bothered to describe them as both 'moveable or elastic' then those same arms could be lever-weights (lws), or roller lever-weights (rlws), or flexible spring levers like MT18, or even Storks Bill like expandable and contractible 'arms'.
But imo the mere fact he described them as both 'moveable or elastic' suggests and element of adjustability to the 'arms'. That might well include his impression of a SB element or Gaffle for example, connecting to the lever shaft, to give an impression of adjustability.
Can we cross-check what he has said in the first letter against the second and narrow things down somewhat ? Time had moved on so his second letter would perhaps be more subjective but perhaps certain 'memory facts' gained clarity over time. Maybe enough to rule some previous choices out ?
...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. 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. 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.
In the second letter arms becomes moveable rods. That's good. He didn't think to mention elastic this time. But he did note it as an impression in the first letter. So we have rods as levers that fall to the outside impacting boards. Wollf speculates about the source of the never-diminishing rotational force. N.B. B. himself says in MT52 "no wheel is moved through strong blows". Therefore blows were a function of his machine, but they were not 'strong', tho able to be heard. That seems counter-intuitive to Impact Wheel Theory.
So now it looks like the original letter lacked some detail. The arms were rod like (levers). They may have had a mechanical element to them which suggested 'adjustability' of some sort but not later mentioned in 1722. They fell on the overbalanced side he theorized, because they hit short boards there, which he saw. So that means the lws didn't fall inwards and they weren't attached on the periphery. But in the 'vicinity' of the periphery. That may suggest the arms were short lengthed, and perhaps many in number.
That may give reason for the large circumference required. It also begs the question what was between the axle and these arms attachment radius ? Maybe nothing, and maybe something ?! Seems a waste not to use this volume. Perhaps you could double or triple up the same working principles ? MT11 suggests 'there is more to it than meets the eye'. 11 is an important number in Pythagorean numerology for example.
Bill's quote above is from the first of 1715.
I include the 1722 correspondence for comparison. Bolding, underlining etc is done by me for effect.
... 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. 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 ...
- Christian Wolff, letter to Leibniz, examination of Merseburg wheel, 19th December, 1715.
In this first letter Wolff kind of follows the scientific principle we know today. Observe, form a theory, and attempt to prove it. It was a pity he didn't include more 'facts' but at the time he probably didn't think it that relevant to do so. The weights (~ 4 lb cylindrical shape) were attached to some moveable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel. The weights could be heard impacting against short boards. He saw (the arms) thru a crack in the covering. He does not say that he saw these arms when the wheel was in motion or when it was stationary ? Unlikely to be in motion because others would have commented on it also, and the inside would have been dark, and it was moving quickly. Even stationary he'd need to crane his neck to get his eye to the crack and let his eye adjust to the dim light available. So stationary seems likely. Pity he didn't hold up his phone and use the torch and take a pic eh.
We have to allow for possible translation nuances, so we don't know whether the arms which were moveable or elastic faced inwards, or outwards. He says 'on' the periphery which if taken literally means the rim and so you'd possibly think they were pointing inwards. And since he bothered to describe them as both 'moveable or elastic' then those same arms could be lever-weights (lws), or roller lever-weights (rlws), or flexible spring levers like MT18, or even Storks Bill like expandable and contractible 'arms'.
But imo the mere fact he described them as both 'moveable or elastic' suggests and element of adjustability to the 'arms'. That might well include his impression of a SB element or Gaffle for example, connecting to the lever shaft, to give an impression of adjustability.
Can we cross-check what he has said in the first letter against the second and narrow things down somewhat ? Time had moved on so his second letter would perhaps be more subjective but perhaps certain 'memory facts' gained clarity over time. Maybe enough to rule some previous choices out ?
...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. 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. 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.
In the second letter arms becomes moveable rods. That's good. He didn't think to mention elastic this time. But he did note it as an impression in the first letter. So we have rods as levers that fall to the outside impacting boards. Wollf speculates about the source of the never-diminishing rotational force. N.B. B. himself says in MT52 "no wheel is moved through strong blows". Therefore blows were a function of his machine, but they were not 'strong', tho able to be heard. That seems counter-intuitive to Impact Wheel Theory.
So now it looks like the original letter lacked some detail. The arms were rod like (levers). They may have had a mechanical element to them which suggested 'adjustability' of some sort but not later mentioned in 1722. They fell on the overbalanced side he theorized, because they hit short boards there, which he saw. So that means the lws didn't fall inwards and they weren't attached on the periphery. But in the 'vicinity' of the periphery. That may suggest the arms were short lengthed, and perhaps many in number.
That may give reason for the large circumference required. It also begs the question what was between the axle and these arms attachment radius ? Maybe nothing, and maybe something ?! Seems a waste not to use this volume. Perhaps you could double or triple up the same working principles ? MT11 suggests 'there is more to it than meets the eye'. 11 is an important number in Pythagorean numerology for example.
Last edited by Fletcher on Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
eccentrically1
- Addict
- Posts: 3166
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm
Gravitational slingshot is a misnomer. The craft is actually assisted by the solar orbit of the body, not the gravitational pull.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
" gravity assist around a planet changes a spacecraft's velocity (relative to the Sun) by entering and leaving the gravitational sphere of influence of a planet. The spacecraft's speed increases as it approaches the planet and decreases while escaping its gravitational pull (which is approximately the same), but because the planet orbits the Sun the spacecraft is affected by this motion during the maneuver. To increase speed, the spacecraft flies with the movement of the planet, acquiring some of the planet's orbital energy in the process; to decrease speed, the spacecraft flies against the movement of the planet to transfer some of its own orbital energy to the planet - in both types of maneuver the energy transfer compared to the planet's total orbital energy will be negligible. The sum of the kinetic energies of both bodies remains constant (see elastic collision). A slingshot maneuver can therefore be used to change the spaceship's trajectory and speed relative to the Sun."
So yes, stop trying to find a gravity wheel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
" gravity assist around a planet changes a spacecraft's velocity (relative to the Sun) by entering and leaving the gravitational sphere of influence of a planet. The spacecraft's speed increases as it approaches the planet and decreases while escaping its gravitational pull (which is approximately the same), but because the planet orbits the Sun the spacecraft is affected by this motion during the maneuver. To increase speed, the spacecraft flies with the movement of the planet, acquiring some of the planet's orbital energy in the process; to decrease speed, the spacecraft flies against the movement of the planet to transfer some of its own orbital energy to the planet - in both types of maneuver the energy transfer compared to the planet's total orbital energy will be negligible. The sum of the kinetic energies of both bodies remains constant (see elastic collision). A slingshot maneuver can therefore be used to change the spaceship's trajectory and speed relative to the Sun."
So yes, stop trying to find a gravity wheel.
re: MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code
Hi Dave
I chose to work with the belief gravity does not exist and conservation
does at the most fundamental level.
However we can see a straight edge exists on a rulers.
We can measure length - all very practical.
But at the very small scale we would see a cloud of electrons on a wavy density boundary.
The edge does not exist and the energy conservation continues.
P.S. When we slingshot a mass around a vertical rotating disc.
As the mass is being pushed away from the affect of a planet.
Then we would be going some were.
All the best
I chose to work with the belief gravity does not exist and conservation
does at the most fundamental level.
However we can see a straight edge exists on a rulers.
We can measure length - all very practical.
But at the very small scale we would see a cloud of electrons on a wavy density boundary.
The edge does not exist and the energy conservation continues.
P.S. When we slingshot a mass around a vertical rotating disc.
As the mass is being pushed away from the affect of a planet.
Then we would be going some were.
All the best
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
Re: re: MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code
Hey Dave .. nice to hear your voice ;7)FunWithGravity2 wrote:Is there any way in which someone could use the gravitational slingshot formula that was used by NASA and other space exploration agencies and somehow work backward from the the actual to determine a working formula that assumes a alternative gravitational assumption that fits the outcomes that are considered anomalies. Could you then replace the incorrect Newtonian formula into WM or other simulation program and model outcomes based upon that.
It just seems so silly to me that the normal course of business to trying to find this answer involves the use of laws of motion that clearly must be wrong in order for the concept to work. If we believe that the wheel is possible then why are we constantly using conservation laws to determine validity if the existence of our success would invalidate those same laws. I don't think Bessler could have ever imagined it would be this difficult to figure out. Clearly by his design he was trying to make it hard but somehow in his mind it should have been possible. But I don't believe he at that time fathomed the depth to which Newton would go to solidify his place in science and forever harm the advancement of the technology. We have been sold a convenient lie by Newton and his followers for far to long. If you have a working wheel it will unravel the very basic laws that we have based 300 years worth of experimentation on.
But anyway.
IMHO gravity does not exist, its a farce. STOP trying to build a gravity wheel.
Crazy Dave
AFAIK the Conservation of Energy Law was derived from Newton's Laws. And I suppose also C.o. Momentum and Angular Momentum Laws. And that's why science says and teaches mechanical gravity PM is impossible. But let's assume you are right and B. never thought it would be that hard. He just built it and it self-rotated.
But Newton's Laws are Laws for a reason. They were upgraded from Theories to Laws because until now they have never been shown to be wrong by experimentation, or math.
So if Levers etc and all mechanical principles can be predicted by Newtonian Physics and Laws then what gives ? It must be the Laws of Thermodynamics which are heat - work related overarching Laws formulated from Joules and Helmholtz's work.
If B's wheel's worked, then it must have been a wrong extrapolation to bring Newton's Laws as a sub-set under the Thermodynamic Laws. And then that says that whilst gravity is an acceleration or field of potential it also can be a source of usable energy to convert to useful Work. That doesn't fit the Newtonian or Thermodynamic paradigms and would cause some rethink of Physics (Work Energy Equivalence and Noether's Theorem of symmetry) as we know it. Maybe just a footnote when the think tanking is done. But maybe a major overhaul.
re: MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code
.
.
.
.
.
........................¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ the future is here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Advocate of God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and redeemer of my soul.
Walter Clarkson
© 2023 Walter W. Clarkson, LLC
All rights reserved. Do not even quote me w/o my expressed written consent.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ the future is here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Advocate of God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and redeemer of my soul.
Walter Clarkson
© 2023 Walter W. Clarkson, LLC
All rights reserved. Do not even quote me w/o my expressed written consent.
re: MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code
I think Wolff meant the weights moved on the periphery or rim of the wheel. That might imply the arms that he imagined attached to the weights had their pivot somewhere close to the axle. MT18 might be a good example of the structure. Also, I think what Wolf described seeing through the slit were the short perpendicular rim boards (bad translation) upon which the weights landed, again as in MT18.Fletcher wrote:We have to allow for possible translation nuances, so we don't know whether the arms which were moveable or elastic faced inwards, or outwards. He says 'on' the periphery which if taken literally means the rim and so you'd possibly think they were pointing inwards.
re: MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code
Yes .. the second letter of 1722 confirms that. He's built a theory around his observed mechanical facts, extract below.Bill wrote:I think Wolff meant the weights moved on the periphery or rim of the wheel.
"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."
Yes also .. MT18 would fit the picture of 'moveable or elastic arms' and rim stops etc. What can't be confirmed or implied from his statements is at what radius the arm pivots were located. Since about 8 sounds were heard per revolution then that suggests not too many arms, if what they were hearing was the arms falling to the stops ?!That might imply the arms that he imagined attached to the weights had their pivot somewhere close to the axle.
MT18 might be a good example of the structure. Also, I think what Wolf described seeing through the slit were the short perpendicular rim boards (bad translation) upon which the weights landed, again as in MT18.
But if we take the diameter of the wheel and the reported rpm I think we run into the problems that are discussed in this thread. To fast a clip for weights to fall and sweep a large angle out at the rim and be effective. But if we have many short arms (relative to the wheel radius) sweeping much smaller arcs then perhaps the keep-up outcome is not so grim. IMO.
re: MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code
Could the opposite be true? Perhaps the weights are lifted on the heavy side of the wheel and fall on the light side. That would mean the weights are lifted up and into the rim boards on the heavy (downward) side, impacting them from below.Wolff wrote: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.
The various eyewitness accounts generally assume the impact noise was the result of the weights 'falling' on the downwards side of the wheel. Assumptions can be misleading:
Certificate for wheel tested at Merseburg wrote:The machine was started by a very light push with just two fingers and accelerated as soon as one of the weights, hidden inside, began to fall...
Johann Weisse wrote:As soon as just one of the internal weights began to fall, the machine started to revolve...
Christian Wolff wrote:One could hear the weights landing on the overbalanced side...
Joseph Fischer wrote:At every turn of the wheel can be heard the sound of about eight weights, which fall gently on the side towards which the wheel turns...
re: MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code
Hypothesis:
- There exists a gradient between the sum and the difference of the
forces gravity and c.f. (centrifugal force) acting on a rotating mass(s). These forces add at
B.D.C. (bottom dead center) and subtract at T. D. C (top dead center). This gradient can be
considered a prime mover utilized to cause an imbalance moving together with the
aforementioned rotating mass(s) thereby increasing the gradient.
Oh Vee why squared mechanism.
mbmb[1-4]Code: Select all
[sub]1-4[/sub]
hummm, can't make a subscript. Dammit.
That didn't work either.
α
........................¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ the future is here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Advocate of God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and redeemer of my soul.
Walter Clarkson
© 2023 Walter W. Clarkson, LLC
All rights reserved. Do not even quote me w/o my expressed written consent.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ the future is here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Advocate of God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and redeemer of my soul.
Walter Clarkson
© 2023 Walter W. Clarkson, LLC
All rights reserved. Do not even quote me w/o my expressed written consent.
Re: re: MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code
Your theory of the opposite happening i.e. lifting of lws on the descending side hitting rim boards from underneath, and falling on the ascending side can't be refuted from the available information. However the weight of assumption from the various eye-witnesses observers who were there suggests the opposite and simplest explanation. Assumptions can be misleading because the information is not perfect but as Wolff did they are necessary to form a hypothesis or theory and move forward with it. They are place holders until superseded by facts, if they can be determined.ovyyus wrote:Could the opposite be true? Perhaps the weights are lifted on the heavy side of the wheel and fall on the light side. That would mean the weights are lifted up and into the rim boards on the heavy (downward) side, impacting them from below.Wolff wrote: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.
The various eyewitness accounts generally assume the impact noise was the result of the weights 'falling' on the downwards side of the wheel. Assumptions can be misleading:
For your scenario to unfold there would be required a lifting force on the descending side against gravity force i.e. a net upwards acceleration of the lws. Where it does have a strength to the argument imo is in visualizing Oystein's Preponderance Principle of 3,5 instead of the normal 5,3 for a CW rotating lw wheel. If the levers are lifted on the down-going side it is easy to see how that lifting would accelerate the wheel around and restore GPE levels on that side of the wheel. Traditional Physics says that comes at an equivalent energy cost of input from somewhere. In reality no different an equation to solve than faced by the 'normal' working gravity wheel theorists.
What we can say is that if you were attempting to duplicate Bessler's wheels from Wolff's comments etc is you must have outward facing pivoted arms with cylindrical heavy weights at their ends. There must also be short boards at right angles to the rim. Impact noises are normal to operation.
And if you also follow B's. MT comments and in AP etc then you also need a Zusammen Gehangten (Hung Together/Connectedness) Principle, ropes and pulleys, a correct handle-construction, a Prime Mover, all-the-while taking note that there is a correct application of the SB's, and that there is something special behind the SB's.
Loads of assumptions can be made on those 'directives' because we don't have all the facts. However we combine them, twist them, recombine them, morph them etc; whatever permutations, theories and hypothesis's we come up with, ultimately the job is to pull together a coherent mechanical principle of PM, for the believers in Bessler and his true mechanical PMMs.
I'd suggest the outward facing pivoted lws (however rudimentary that seems) is the one true dependable corner stone of the edifice we are building. It's a start thanks to Wolff looking thru a crack somewhere below the axle line.
re: MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code
Wolff only mentioned seeing short rim boards through a slit. His other comments about arms and connections and falling are his assumptions and therefore I certainly wouldn't say these things are a 'true dependable corner stone of the edifice we are building'.Fletcher wrote:What we can say is that if you were attempting to duplicate Bessler's wheels from Wolff's comments etc is you must have outward facing pivoted arms with cylindrical heavy weights at their ends. There must also be short boards at right angles to the rim. Impact noises are normal to operation.
re: MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code
A further point about the Merseburg dual-direction wheel which underwent the translocation test. I assume Wolff looked thru a crack in the wheel covering below the axle line because it was over 11 feet in diameter plus ground clearance. Unless he stood on a box etc. I don't believe he said.
So he would have been looking in the lower half of the wheel. Because it was a two-way wheel we don't know whether he was looking thru the crack on the ascending or descending side, as if it'd matter.
We don't know that he saw weights resting on short boards. He didn't say AFAIK. Just that there were arms and weights, and short boards, not necessarily in contact. And a spring noise he deduced.
He speculates later in 1722 that the weights rest on the short boards on the ascending side ready to be lifted. Impact noises were heard on the descending side.
What he didn't say was that there was a birds nest of arms and weights etc. So whatever the mechanism of wheel reversal, and I favour dual systems, then perhaps one was inside the other at a different radius rather than side by side which would have lead to crossing over of lws, and surely he would have commented on ?
So he would have been looking in the lower half of the wheel. Because it was a two-way wheel we don't know whether he was looking thru the crack on the ascending or descending side, as if it'd matter.
We don't know that he saw weights resting on short boards. He didn't say AFAIK. Just that there were arms and weights, and short boards, not necessarily in contact. And a spring noise he deduced.
He speculates later in 1722 that the weights rest on the short boards on the ascending side ready to be lifted. Impact noises were heard on the descending side.
What he didn't say was that there was a birds nest of arms and weights etc. So whatever the mechanism of wheel reversal, and I favour dual systems, then perhaps one was inside the other at a different radius rather than side by side which would have lead to crossing over of lws, and surely he would have commented on ?
re: MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code
It's only a vector addition where centrifugal (or lack of centripetal) points outwards, and gravity points downwards.WaltzCee wrote:There exists a gradient between the sum and the difference of the
forces gravity and c.f. (centrifugal force) acting on a rotating mass(s). These forces add at
B.D.C. (bottom dead center) and subtract at T. D. C (top dead center).
WaltzCee, a question about mb₍₁₋₄₎ in your napkin design.
Why would mb₃ and mb₄ move outwards while mb₁ and mb₂ move inwards?
It think that such opening and closing can only happen when mb₂ and mb₃ are fixed.
Well ok, have fun with nothing then :-)FunWithGravity2 wrote:IMHO gravity does not exist, its a farce.
1. Sure you can replace formulas in a What-If-program (=simulator) when you have the ability to alter the source-code, that's basically the fun of a simulator.Could you then replace the incorrect Newtonian formula into WM or other simulation program and model outcomes based upon that.
2. How do you know those Newtonian formula's are incorrect?
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
Re: re: MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code
Point made Bill .. what Wolff said in 1715 was "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." An in 1722 says "I suggest, therefore, that the weights on the wheel's periphery are attached by rods".ovyyus wrote:Wolff only mentioned seeing short rim boards through a slit. His other comments about arms and connections and falling are his assumptions and therefore I certainly wouldn't say these things are a 'true dependable corner stone of the edifice we are building'.Fletcher wrote:What we can say is that if you were attempting to duplicate Bessler's wheels from Wolff's comments etc is you must have outward facing pivoted arms with cylindrical heavy weights at their ends. There must also be short boards at right angles to the rim. Impact noises are normal to operation.
He is the best source of real mechanical information we have. Tho I can't know what his "other circumstantial evidence" is I somehow trust his instincts.
You are free to trust yours.