Excess Torque Hypothesis : Mechanical Sustainable Imbalance Possibilities ( <>> ) ?

[daxwc]

Hi Fletcher thanks for taking the time to clarify it; just wanted to make sure the weights wasn’t working in some combination I wasn’t aware of. I like your inner mechanism, but not so hot on the outer chain although I see why you are experimenting with it.

Maybe I am wrong but it seems to me the chain steals too much momentum. What I mean by this is if the arms were not tied altogether the chain at 1A has two avenues of action or a combination of both. As 1A moves out the chain can be lifted or it can be stressed till it rotates. Moving it out and lifting it causes the chain to lose momentum.

What I would love to see is two systems that both have torque symmetry but highly unstable which causes one to implode vertically but recover itself before bottom (1/4 turn) then fight for the same space which triggers the other to implode but all while adding momentum.

Momentum is a strange creature. 8P We talk lots about Static PE but time is really king. Maybe if you can cause the outer chain to Jacobs Ladder effect?

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher thanks for taking the time to clarify it; just wanted to make sure the weights wasn’t working in some combination I wasn’t aware of.

I like your inner mechanism, but not so hot on the outer chain although I see why you are experimenting with it. Maybe I am wrong but it seems to me the chain steals too much momentum.

What I mean by this is if the arms were not tied altogether the chain at 1A has two avenues of action or a combination of both. As 1A moves out the chain can be lifted or it can be stressed till it rotates. Moving it out and lifting it causes the chain to lose momentum.

Your welcome dax .. I think you have the wrong impression of what the Drive Chain does.

It pretty much follows the looped path shown, with some minor ripples and waves etc as the 'arms' deploy and make contact with it. That means that it has a constant OOB in and of itself. An important point and why I chose it. It effectively, after being held outwards (and lifted slightly) by 1A IS the Prime Mover or 'keeper of the imbalance'.

The next thing to consider is that the lever-weights (lws) are actually roller-lever-weights (rlws). The cylindrical weights are free to rotate beneath the Chain, and then sometimes the Chain rolls over them. So the Chains momentum is independent of the Carrier Wheel which just gives it a 'tap along' every 8th of a rotation (e.g. hoop and stick game). But all the while, because of multiple contact points (frictions), the Drive Chain pulls the Carrier Wheel around with it. So it's a merry old waltz of around and around, with one or the other sometimes leading and the other following.

Just a point of note - if the Jack system is not there i.e. has no rope and pulley connections, or has simple weight-to-weight rope connections exactly like MT9, then 1A can not open in that position near 3 o'cl. There is no leverage great enough to do that AND also move the Chain outwards to imbalance i.e. the Chains weight holds 1A in against the rim. That is the special-ness behind the SB's (reduced to a single Gaffle and pulley system) in my Theory.

However we slice and dice it the whole Hypothesis and Theory is founded on what I consider B's. Prime Directive of MT9.

"In all places where I have found weight-figures, these weights are seen to be simple and nothing is attached to the belts or chains. Such is the case with Leupold, but nothing is to be accomplished with his thing unless one acts out of my connectedness principle; but here I do not yet wish to show or discuss the figure for the time being." MT9

"Zusammen Gehangten" Principle is often translated/interpreted as "Connectedness" Principle. In old German it literally translates as "Together Hung" Principle. So ignoring that directive as a corner stone of any Theory is at your peril and doomed to failure imo. Of course just what "Hung Together" method he was going to discuss further later is a question ? I've tried just about every other around-wheel and thru-wheel connectedness methods known to mankind over the years. What I never did was give proper time and thought to what was under my nose in MT9. Probably because it didn't inherently seem to have much upside, until I began to delve deeper.

Firstly I take the view that the Hung Together Jacking ability is the paramount action of MT9 to be conveyed. But it doesn't work without something else. And as I've been pointing out for a very long time none of the MT9 grouping can achieve a fan pattern of arms like shown (with weight-to-weight ropes) in the various woodcuts without the Gaffle and Rope and Pulleys systems which can achieve that peacock display look.

Secondly a "Hung Together" Principle also aptly applies to my Drive Chain Prime Mover (rather obviously).

Two for the price of one anyone ?

What I would love to see is two systems that both have torque symmetry but highly unstable which causes one to implode vertically but recover itself before bottom (1/4 turn) then fight for the same space which triggers the other to implode but all while adding momentum.

Momentum is a strange creature. 8P We talk lots about Static PE but time is really king. Maybe if you can cause the outer chain to Jacobs Ladder effect?

And there's the rub - I'd also love to see a neat and tidy solution, easy to visualize, elegant, such as domino's falling continuously, or circular Jacob's ladder etc. But no-one has solved the mechanics for that paradox. And you would consider them "Hung Together" Principles eh !


Ironically that is what I propose, a continuously "falling" Chain !


N.B. The reason why it "appears to fall continuously" is because Santa's little elves are busy mitigating Negative Back-Torques so that a System Wide Positive Torque can dominate !

Not the usually tried method to achieving sustained imbalance of forces in a wheel, by far ! Unique I'd say !

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

Your welcome dax .. I think you have the wrong impression of what the Drive Chain does.

No, I think I understand it.

Just a point of note - if the Jack system is not there i.e. has no rope and pulley connections, or has simple weight-to-weight rope connections exactly like MT9, then 1A can not open in that position near 3 o'cl. There is no leverage great enough to do that AND also move the Chain outwards to imbalance i.e. the Chains weight holds 1A in against the rim. That is the special-ness behind the SB's (reduced to a single Gaffle and pulley system) in my Theory.

That is the part I am impressed with. Something I couldn’t get done jacking two or three together that could handle a position change or CF.

The next thing to consider is that the lever-weights (lws) are actually roller-lever-weights (rlws). The cylindrical weights are free to rotate beneath the Chain, and then sometimes the Chain rolls over them. So the Chains momentum is independent of the Carrier Wheel which just gives it a 'tap along' every 8th of a rotation (e.g. hoop and stick game). But all the while, because of multiple contact points (frictions), the Drive Chain pulls the Carrier Wheel around with it. So it's a merry old waltz of around and around, with one or the other sometimes leading and the other following.

This is the part of the mechanism I think could be better, is the ‘tap along’ it may not seem like it but the vertical action actually lifts the chain (which I understand things need to be lifted). I think your mind is on the right track that they are sharing momentum with each other. I think in real life it will be eaten up by friction. How much friction in percentage till the system stops in the SIM?

Again I would like that the jack action part of its reaction with the chain drove the chain down even more than it does. Somehow the action and reaction add momentum to both systems without hindering the others momentum. Like small inertia springing off high inertia.

I know I seem very critical which is why you might be surprised to hear me say I actually love your idea.

[Georg Künstler]

Fletcher wrote:

However if what B. says is true (of his wheels) then this theory requires that one Secondary Wheel be mounted inside an outer. And they both turn in the same direction on the same axle.

only the outer wheel has an axis, and they both turn in the same direction.

with a round system you can not gain the win against gravity. You will not get a difference in the speed by going up and down.

Nevertheless, your chain version is a runner if you make a small modification.
It is not Besslers version, I must say, but it fulfills the bi-directional conditions.

What is missing in your chain version is, that it is not preloaded with gravity energy.

[Fletcher]

Hi Georg ..

only the outer wheel has an axis, and they both turn in the same direction.

Yes, that is what I meant. Imagine one set of spokes or one backboard construction with a center axle. Attached are two independent mech sets, one near the rim (say at 1r) which controls the Chain Drive, the other inside that set at say 1/2r to provide a counter-torque. They therefore both turn the same direction.

To mitigate torques effectively the inside mech set mass relationship to outer has to be calculated depending on opening angles and lever lengths etc (dictated by available space). Assuming the same number of mechs per set were used in each, say 8 and 8 for example (but need not be the same number). As mentioned up to 24 or beyond may be a better number depending on circumference length and physical space available to move in.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Fletcher,

I see the chain as an top heavy weight, you can also put an simple ring on top of your construction.

That is not the way to go, the construction is not "EGGING".

in German we will say "es eiert nicht" .

For example you can have a look to the apologia Wheel, it is a segmented Wheel. Put a simple ring arround and you will get a tilt swing.
You will get the necessary movment, up,down,left,right in one construction,
Only the Apologia Wheel on an axle and a ring around.

[Fletcher]

Just a point of note - if the Jack system is not there i.e. has no rope and pulley connections, or has simple weight-to-weight rope connections exactly like MT9, then 1A can not open in that position near 3 o'cl. There is no leverage great enough to do that AND also move the Chain outwards to imbalance i.e. the Chains weight holds 1A in against the rim. That is the special-ness behind the SB's (reduced to a single Gaffle and pulley system) in my Theory.

That is the part I am impressed with. Something I couldn’t get done jacking two or three together that could handle a position change or CF.

The next thing to consider is that the lever-weights (lws) are actually roller-lever-weights (rlws). The cylindrical weights are free to rotate beneath the Chain, and then sometimes the Chain rolls over them. So the Chains momentum is independent of the Carrier Wheel which just gives it a 'tap along' every 8th of a rotation (e.g. hoop and stick game). But all the while, because of multiple contact points (frictions), the Drive Chain pulls the Carrier Wheel around with it. So it's a merry old waltz of around and around, with one or the other sometimes leading and the other following.

This is the part of the mechanism I think could be better, is the ‘tap along’ it may not seem like it but the vertical action actually lifts the chain (which I understand things need to be lifted). I think your mind is on the right track that they are sharing momentum with each other.

Again I would like that the jack action part of its reaction with the chain drove the chain down even more than it does. Somehow the action and reaction add momentum to both systems without hindering the others momentum. Like small inertia springing off high inertia.

I know I seem very critical which is why you might be surprised to hear me say I actually love your idea.

Not surprised at all dax. It makes perfect sense ;7)

How much friction in percentage till the system stops in the SIM?

I think in real life it will be eaten up by friction.

Well, the friction is quite realistic overall. The sim Chain links are joined by simple Pin Joints. I've set the static and dynamic frictions between objects to 0.3 (0.0 to 1.0 is the range). This is normal levels of frictions for most materials. Even when I increase them to 0.9 it keeps on turning without any trouble. Additionally I upped the air friction quotient to a whoppingly high level and it slowed it by only 2 rpm. This was very unrealistic but was a load test of sorts.

So I'm not seeing any friction objections being a major concern with the design.

That's because the Chain runs (slides and rolls) around the rlws. The Fan Jack Wheel, which gives the Chain shape and displacement, gives a Negative Torque which is slightly greater than the Chains Positive Torque contribution. This means taking this dual system in isolation it has a tendency to want to turn CCW instead of the required CW for the Fan Jack to operate as it should. The addition of a further lw structure then adds more Positive Torque to the system.

Overall the NET System Torque (in Theory) is continuously Positive, well overcoming frictions and loads (within reason).

N.B. the Fan Jack can easily lift the Chain when required, once again within reason (experimentation provides the limits).

[daxwc]

I suggest building just the inner jack system in real life to make sure it actually works the way the SIM suggests. Quite awhile ago I had made a SIM on Algoddoo that showed positive results in lifting. I then asked Kane to do a better SIM which had the same results. Then built my modified storkbills mechanism only to find it was about 20 percent short no matter what I tried. Needless to say I didn’t build the rest of the wheel. Or what is your plan going forward?

[Fletcher]

I suggest building just the inner jack system in real life to make sure it actually works the way the SIM suggests.

Quite awhile ago I had made a SIM on Algoddoo that showed positive results in lifting. I then asked Kane to do a better SIM which had the same results. Then built my modified storkbills mechanism only to find it was about 20 percent short no matter what I tried. Needless to say I didn’t build the rest of the wheel.

Ahhh .. I see where you were going with the friction questions. I too have real world experimented extensively with SB's. Especially in the early days. Like everybody else I found multi-segmented versions had way to much frictions to be useful, and a limited range where they were easy to move (change shape), and often became completely stuck from those frictions outside those limits. And I wondered why B. had said that Horizontal application was better than the vertical because of frictions etc. It was a warning about their mechanical practicality. The workaround was very simple, if space was not a premium. You could get the full and identical force transference benefit of the SB action by reducing the internal pivot frictions and stop sections rubbing against each other as they open or closed. And the best way to do this was simply remove the need for multi-sections. One section was all that was required, with longer levers. That is why I use the Gaffle lever in place of multi-sectioned SB's (xxx>). Low frictions across all range of movement, horizontal or vertical. I experimentally proved to myself that the two types were near identical in function i.e. a similar force x distance moved a mass the same distance etc in different circumstances. The single section had less frictional losses.

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 470#170470

I in no way expected a SB (or Gaffle lever) to have superior and hitherto unknown mechanical attributes that somehow violated Archimedes Law of Levers. Or was a basic mechanical workaround throwing out M.A. x S.R. = 1.

And I did not expect that Newton's Laws of Motion would be compromised by SB's and Gaffles. They were compound levers, and simple ones at that.

But still, there had to be a reason for their multiple mentioning and implied importance in MT ? They had to be part of a mechanical concept that was important. And while they didn't have super-powers they must confer some small benefit in terms of application of forces by their very nature. And they do when used as I show in the sim in the ganged Jack formation. They provide a superior sideways force at A1, and above, than the benchmark MT9 modeling of weight-to-weight rope connections (or weight-to-lever, or lever-to-lever etc.). It is because the Gaffle changes the torque angle of the rlw connections which can be appreciated in any Physics book on leverage and pulleys etc. i.e. put simply they are better at re-directing forces to where they are needed !

Anyone who doubts this can make their own physical experiments. In the sim it is easy to have A1 do work on a spring (stores energy = f x d) v's the MT9 benchmark configuration. Or test out the virtues of the multi-sectional SB v's the single section v's the Gaffle lever etc. I have absolutely no reason to doubt the authenticity just because it's a sim comparison. Tho I can see why a non-sim user would want to do physical experiments to satisfy themselves, and rightly so if not a regular sim user.

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

Short on time - will answer the rest of the post later - cheers.

[Fletcher]

Or what is your plan going forward?

This topic and thread is intended as a repository of sorts. Predominantly of my last 15 months since I came up with my hypothesis and theory.

I spent around 20 years, on and off, looking to answer the question of how did B. accomplish his demonstrations ? Whether he was fair or foul, they both needed a solution. Very little real advancement has been made towards those answers in that time, imo.

This discussion board has been a wonderful vessel for all things Bessler and as a medium for communication about them.

Over the years as a member of this discussion board I have however been disappointed in one aspect in particular. A personal agenda driven lack of open sharing of ideas from conception to conclusion. There are exceptions such as Raj, and MrV who fully discloses his research and perhaps more importantly his theories. Kudos. Many others work away in private and even when an idea fails to materialize presumably feel embarrassed or lack the drive to post it here as a record of their attempt, or perhaps most importantly as a learning experience for others to benefit from. It seems the thought of someone perhaps standing on their shoulders at a future time is repugnant to them. Yet that is how advancements in science are generally made, some from mistakes or aberrant behaviour recorded and reviewed. This means the board is nowhere near to fulfilling its full potential to solve the B. riddle imo. This is not Scott's fault. He provided the platform and we make it what it is.

I am of the opinion that before a build be attempted that we need a reasonable theory of how the mechanical gravity wheel will accelerate up to speed and accumulate momentum. I'm not a believer in the shotgun approach or just throw it against the wall. So I give more thought to members contributions that give a supplementary theory behind their build ideas.

And any theory must aim to reconcile currently scientifically inconsistent physical principles and Bessler's Principle of Excess Weight, also called Excess Impetus, and Preponderance. Clearly a "True Mechanical Perpetual Motion Machine" must have Excess Torque generated by some physical means !

Bessler held in his possession, until his death, and unpublished, his MT (or whatever he was going to call it). He did publish many other works in which he gives many metaphors and very little sage mechanical advice.

In MT that is reversed imo. If we can figure it out. His 'true' solution must be above all else logical !!! It must be consistent with known mechanical principles, perhaps employed differently.

So to answer your question dax this thread condenses dramatically, records and shares my own deductions and journey from Hypothesis to Theory about the means to achieve a Bessler like "True Mechanical Perpetual Motion Machine". A Theory that has a different emphasis and rationale on how that Excess Torque is generated than any others I have seen !

And I hope everyone reading it gains at least one learning opportunity from it !

Outta time for the moment. Later !

[agor95]

Well said and appreciated.

Cheers

[Georg Künstler]

Fletcher wrote:

And any theory must aim to reconcile currently scientifically inconsistent physical principles and Bessler's Principle of Excess Weight, also called Excess Impetus, and Preponderance. Clearly a "True Mechanical Perpetual Motion Machine" must have Excess Torque generated by some physical means !

there is no gap, the solution is covered by physics.

The Basic of the movement is a falling stick in the Wheel. A tilt swing.
We know from the Eyewitnesses that they heard 8 Impacts per turn on the down going side. -- > 4 sticks, falling forward will produce this noise, we have an octagon walker, I showed it many times.

The octagon walker is a well balanced system, Standing in the Hamster cage. When the Hamster Cage is turned left or right, the octagon will fall over. From this time on, the symmetry is broken !!
You have an Impact on the down going side.
You have also torque on your the Hamster Cage.

The octagon will fall over again and again, because the Hamster cage is rotating.their is no solid stand anymore for the octagon walker, the base is pulled away.

We know also that the weights are cylindrical. the cylindrical weights have a Special function on the ground of the octagon walker.
they fit between two dowels of the Hamster Cage.
So the cylinders are acting as a tooth of a wheel.
more later

[WaltzCee]

Or what is your plan going forward?

This topic and thread is intended as a repository of sorts. Predominantly of my last 15 months since I came up with my hypothesis and theory.

Commendable.

I spent around 20 years, on and off, looking to answer the question of how did B. accomplish his demonstrations ? Whether he was fair or foul, they both needed a solution. Very little real advancement has been made towards those answers in that time, imo.

Sometimes progress is made very slowly.

This discussion board has been a wonderful vessel for all things Bessler and as a medium for communication about them.

No other place on earth like this forum.

Over the years as a member of this discussion board I have however been disappointed in one aspect in particular. A personal agenda driven lack of open sharing of ideas from conception to conclusion. There are exceptions such as Raj, and MrV who fully discloses his research and perhaps more importantly his theories. Kudos. Many others work away in private and even when an idea fails to materialize presumably feel embarrassed or lack the drive to post it here as a record of their attempt, or perhaps most importantly as a learning experience for others to benefit from. It seems the thought of someone perhaps standing on their shoulders at a future time is repugnant to them. Yet that is how advancements in science are generally made, some from mistakes or aberrant behaviour recorded and reviewed. This means the board is nowhere near to fulfilling its full potential to solve the B. riddle imo. This is not Scott's fault. He provided the platform and we make it what it is.

I am of the opinion that before a build be attempted that we need a reasonable theory of how the mechanical gravity wheel will accelerate up to speed and accumulate momentum. I'm not a believer in the shotgun approach or just throw it against the wall. So I give more thought to members contributions that give a supplementary theory behind their build ideas.

Some people hold back, wanting to be credited for their ideas. The most sure way of
getting credit is to take those ideas and make something that will work. I'm pretty sure
that's how some people think.

And any theory must aim to reconcile currently scientifically inconsistent physical principles and Bessler's Principle of Excess Weight, also called Excess Impetus, and Preponderance. Clearly a "True Mechanical Perpetual Motion Machine" must have Excess Torque generated by some physical means !

A torque is the product of a mass over a distance. The only thing in that equation that
can vary is the distance. The mass is a constant. Stating the obvious, the masses have to
move around. When a mass is moving around in the wheel, it is doing work for/on itself. When
the mass is holding still in the wheel, it is doing work for the wheel. If the mass spends too
much time getting in position to do work for the wheel, it will not have any time to do work
for the wheel. I give it about 15 degrees.

Bessler held in his possession, until his death, and unpublished, his MT (or whatever he was going to call it). He did publish many other works in which he gives many metaphors and very little sage mechanical advice.

Different mechanical apparatus can be functionally identical. A search for a mechanism
is not as important as an understanding of that mechanism.

In MT that is reversed imo. If we can figure it out. His 'true' solution must be above all else logical !!! It must be consistent with known mechanical principles, perhaps employed differently.

Absolutely. Perhaps in Reverse, as Ostein noted some time ago.

So to answer your question dax this thread condenses dramatically, records and shares my own deductions and journey from Hypothesis to Theory about the means to achieve a Bessler like "True Mechanical Perpetual Motion Machine". A Theory that has a different emphasis and rationale on how that Excess Torque is generated than any others I have seen !

And I hope everyone reading it gains at least one learning opportunity from it !

Outta time for the moment. Later !

Here's hoping Santa will stuff a little time in your stocking. Everyone enjoys your posts.

[Fletcher]

Here's hoping Santa will stuff a little time in your stocking. Everyone enjoys your posts.

Just the time of year, too many competing interests and things to get done.

Absolutely. Perhaps in Reverse, as Oystein noted some time ago.

Yes, I remember that well. That's why I made the point that the single wheel Jack setup with Chain has a net negative torque i.e. it wants to turn CCW against the CW direction for the rlws to fall and open as they are designed to do. So we have to add a further system of lws to provide a positive torque but more importantly for the Chain to take control and rotate the whole thing CW (in reverse) so that the Jack can work as designed. I think that fits the criteria for a reversing required.

A torque is the product of a mass over a distance. The only thing in that equation that can vary is the distance. The mass is a constant. Stating the obvious, the masses have to move around.

And that's the Stevin's Problem and the Closed Path Problem personified. The distance something can fall and be raised again are equal. We need another way to generate torque, imo. And that's what I'm trying to achieve don't yuh know lol.

Some people hold back, wanting to be credited for their ideas. The most sure way of getting credit is to take those ideas and make something that will work. I'm pretty sure that's how some people think.

That maybe so but history is against us. So what you are saying is that anyone who has an idea and builds it never actually reaches a conclusion, at least that it doesn't work, because he never shares and claims any credit. There is always another hill to climb or adjustment to try. Always a work in progress. And because no one who is not an obvious fraud or nutcase has ever shared the detail and claimed credit for a working PM wheel then no one has been successful to date.

Me, I think I'll continue to try and do things differently.

[Wubbly]

Over the years as a member of this discussion board I have however been disappointed in one aspect in particular. A personal agenda driven lack of open sharing of ideas from conception to conclusion.

Thats human nature. People want to get credit for their invention and don't want someone saying they thought of it first, or someone stealing it and making a monetary gain. Asa Jackson hid the secret of his wheel. Even Bessler hid the secret of his.