Hypothesis .. Raising GPE without using Law of Levers ? ..

[daxwc]

Kattla:
And, 50 RPM isn't really that slow for wheels as large as those Bessler made. It is close to one turn every second. Apply that to the external
pendulums, it is quite a bit for something that long to swing at that rate. That puzzles me, but it goes a long way to explain why he kept the
weights closer to the centre.

We should be able to calculate the swing rate of a pendulum and match it to the RPM of the wheel if we assume it’s part of a large scale pump-and-dump mechanism. The key is to determine if the pendulum's natural frequency can synchronize with the wheel's rotational speed (or a harmonic of it) to facilitate continuous motion.

The only fly in the ointment is if the drum is freewheeling and acts more like a flywheel; it introduces a dynamic where the pendulums might not need to synchronize perfectly with the wheel’s RPM. Instead, the pendulums could provide pulses of energy to maintain the flywheel's momentum, rather than directly matching the rotational frequency.

[daxwc]

Personally I think you guys are stuck too much on this wheel was empty therefore all the weights are at the rim. Even when you have evidence due to “moment of inertia” and the fast acceleration that it can’t be true you cling to this.
Did Bessler say his wheels were empty? No two guys that saw the wheels once each somehow creates evidence when they can’t see inside. You have to remember the naysayers want it to be empty so they can claim a clock spring inside is running it; pure bias.

JC's Wagner: “Lastly, I must mention that they who inspected the Draschwitz wheel observed, almost in the middle of the radius on the one side which faced the wall and was rather dark owing to a lack of incident light, a hand-sized gap formed by the removal of a mere thick splinter an indication that Herr Orffyreus by necessity had to do something in the machine to reset the internal motive principle or superior force to its previous state. Mr. Orffyreus was prepared with the excuse that this opening was left so that whenever something came undone inside the wheel he could fix it right away without having to remove the entire casing (how he always takes care to excuse himself with the fragility of the materials!); this, however, just cannot be. If something breaks on the other side, which is several ells away and has no such service hole, how would Herr Orffyreus be able to fix it through this tiny opening? The wheel currently set up in Merseburg, which is covered with linen cloth, has various openings ~~ that have been left around the axle and are bandaged over with pinned-on strips.”

My point is if he is doing something in the middle it is not empty. He did not spend 6 months building an empty wheel.


Truth is the wheel is accelerating more along the lines of a wheel that has a number of coils of rope on it and you let the weight drop and spin it up.

[Kattla]

Personally I think you guys are stuck too much on this wheel was empty therefore all the weights are at the rim. Even when you have evidence due to “moment of inertia” and the fast acceleration that it can’t be true you cling to this.
Did Bessler say his wheels were empty? No two guys that saw the wheels once each somehow creates evidence when they can’t see inside. You have to remember the naysayers want it to be empty so they can claim a clock spring inside is running it; pure bias.

JC's Wagner: “Lastly, I must mention that they who inspected the Draschwitz wheel observed, almost in the middle of the radius on the one side which faced the wall and was rather dark owing to a lack of incident light, a hand-sized gap formed by the removal of a mere thick splinter an indication that Herr Orffyreus by necessity had to do something in the machine to reset the internal motive principle or superior force to its previous state. Mr. Orffyreus was prepared with the excuse that this opening was left so that whenever something came undone inside the wheel he could fix it right away without having to remove the entire casing (how he always takes care to excuse himself with the fragility of the materials!); this, however, just cannot be. If something breaks on the other side, which is several ells away and has no such service hole, how would Herr Orffyreus be able to fix it through this tiny opening? The wheel currently set up in Merseburg, which is covered with linen cloth, has various openings ~~ that have been left around the axle and are bandaged over with pinned-on strips.”

My point is if he is doing something in the middle it is not empty. He did not spend 6 months building an empty wheel.


Truth is the wheel is accelerating more along the lines of a wheel that has a number of coils of rope on it and you let the weight drop and spin it up.

To me, they are more like pieces of a puzzle. The rumors i read here and so on. Examining them, trying to see how or if they fit the bigger picture. What is written and in what manner they are written. In this case , Bessler found he wanted a service hatch, and placed it at about the middle of the radius. Which in turn suggests that the part most likely to malfunction was halfway out , and maybe fixed to the walls of wheel, although the latter is not very certain.

The Draschwitz wheel was about 2.8 meters in diameter, giving it a radius of 1.4 meters. A hatch in the middle would then be about 70 cm from rim and centre. Sounds fair to me. May not reach it all, but perhaps the casing could be turned independently of the inner mechanism(s).

[Fletcher]

I have never been too sure of how to take the "no weights at the perimeter of the wheel" claims.

Are we talking no heavy weights, or not even the smaller weights that cause the raising of the heavy ones?

If we really believe there are no weights at all, near the perimeter, then why would the wheels need to be so big? other than to have pivot points for the arms holding, or somehow affecting the weights that are close to the axle. MT 19 & 20 style.

MT20 tells us to put the horse before the cart .. i.e. there are 2 parts to a runner - a cart ( I would suggest here lever-weights that are reset to give OOB torque and acceleration ), and a horse, to repeatably reset them after discharging their torque - the horse may have needed a lot of room to roam around in .. in MT20 B. doesn't consider either the rim flip-weights nor the perimeter pivoted driver lever-weights ( w. mass close to the axle ) to be the horse - both are just unworkable OOB methods that when combined to minimize Cf's and maximize leverage still can not lift the weights up and reset themselves .. horse = Prime Mover, imo ..

I wouldn't entertain the idea that Bessler purposely built huge great wheels, just to throw people off the scent, of how it works, if there was absolutely no reason for the wheels to be so big.

So if weights weren't at the perimeter, what was?

Wagner’s Critiques 1716 ..

IX. ... at the experiment, before the wheel was set up at another place in different boards, he had taken an amount of weight out of the wheel which could have filled a considerable box, and in the received testimony he expressly admits that the weights are inside and are driven.

XXIX. On page I, line 12 seq., the defender assures his readers that the principle of the motion depends on no external assistance, driving, etc., but is solely and simply concealed within. I never doubted that the principle is concealed within the wheel, but it is false to say that the motion depends solely on the internally concealed weights, for the impossibility has already been shown sufficiently above. The weights distributed over the circumference of the wheel give it such a powerfully moving force that a load hung from it does not weaken the rotations noticeably. The internal clatter and rattle do not imply a constant alternation of rising and falling; rather the clatter might depend partly on the turning of the weights in the compartments and partly on a completely separate clapping apparatus. Almost no clatter and rattle was to be heard with the Draschwitz wheel; the wheel was made up of 8 spokes and was completely empty near the circumference, as one could see through the various cracks in the casing made of thin splinters, but there was not the slightest trace of a rising and falling weight to be heard or seen.

Wagner had heard about or seen the Merseburg "weights" described by Wolff and others as definitely cylindrical in shape etc etc - he knew what a Bessler "weight" looked like and about how much it weighed ..

Altho B. didn't take out or show the Draschwitz weights, or let them be handled etc, W. would have reasonably assumed that the weights ( which gained force from their swinging ) would be similar if not identical to the Merseburg weights, if not the same ones reused - yet he still says there was no sight nor sound of "weights" ( as he was familiar with ) rising and falling near the circumference of the Draschwitz one-way wheel - it was completely empty "near the circumference" as he looked thru various cracks - one presumes he looked thru cracks at or around eye level .. at face value the space wasn't for nothing, but it also didn't contained "moveable" "weights" as he knew them .. therefore the space was available for some other mechanical function other than weight moving ..

Wolff thought moveable or elastic arms near the rim of the Merseburg wheel ..

[Fletcher]

... 50 RPM isn't really that slow for wheels as large as those Bessler made. It is close to one turn every second. Apply that to the external pendulums, it is quite a bit for something that long to swing at that rate. That puzzles me, but it goes a long way to explain why he kept the weights closer to the centre. ...

Well explained Kattla .. At 50 rpm it is an extremely high rpm for a long pendulum to swing back and forth to complete a cycle, since it has to climb and stop, and then reverse direction all in less than 1 second ..

John Collins AP English Translation ..

Bessler said .. "for I put together the very first device which could spontaneously revolve a little. I saw that I had finally made the right choice, and why the earlier ones had been wrong. My heart leapt for joy at the sight of this genuine Mobile" – AP pg 271

He finally had a genuine runner, but it could only revolve 'a little' - he didn't say "slowly" tho he could have if that is what he only meant - he said it turned a little leaving the door open about what type of movement and rpm it was ..

It is one of the reasons I propose that the Prime Mover for this first successful prototype was a slow acting external pendulum attached by crank to the wheel casing/axle - it would have a very low rpm, especially if that pendulum had a long shaft and tri-weights to increase its inertia .. that wheel was never displayed in public - his next Gera wheel was the beginning of the public display wheels and they didn't just "revolve a little" - they took off like a scalded cat after release and in 1 or 2 turns reached their high operating rpm, and became bigger diameter and wider - you ain't gonna do that sort of high rpms with any hidden long period pendulum hanging from the axle, especially when he said everything must go around with the wheel - so my logic suggests that pendulums were not used in the Gera onwards public wheels ..

In the proposition of big empty wheels only with weights at the rim this makes little sense to me - in MT11 he suggests there is something of value in doubling up the mechs with one set at a closer-in radius etc .. and like dax said you don't spend 6 months building an empty wheel for show and to impress nobody ..

[preoccupied]

This is what I meant, if it can be seen in my drawing- I have the weight which is taking on whiplash from descending applying its force to the opposite side's lever, and there would be a stronger spring there pulling on the opposite side's lever. So whatever the whiplash is that is pulling the weight upwards on the descending side it's times by 4 or more possibly and applies to the upright lever on the ascending side which will apply force to turn the wheel at the catch in the center from that lever. The weight going to the left helps overbalance the wheel on the descending side but also sends some resistance against the lever against its catch location however I think the gears and pulleys that apply to the ascending side show more force to turn the wheel because it is applied by a stronger spring, it like possibly multiplies the force and applies it to the catch on the ascending side. Centrifugal force and whiplash going down on the descending side would power the wheel while the whiplash downwards on the ascending side would cause less activity on the ascending side. So these levers on the descending side respond negatively to force pulling outwards but the ascending sides levers respond positively to force pulling outwards. and I'm taking the whiplash of the weight pulling outwards on the descending side and applying it by pulley and gears to the lever on the ascending side and by gear ratio and a stronger spring may be multiplying the force some amount 4x or more possibly.

[preoccupied]

The overbalanced wheel is best split into 4 pieces to make room for its parts. The lever should travel further than required to pull the lever on the opposite side even though it's slowed down by the gear and a spring which can be stronger should be there to tug on the opposite lever. So a spring pulls the weight outwards but not powerful enough to pull it straight 90 degrees out, under the weight if the wheel weren't moving the spring would only push out the weight partially so the spring pushes tries to push all of the way 90 degrees out but under the weight of the weight if the wheel weren't moving it would only push out partially. Then while the wheel is moving the whiplash descending will pull the weight up 90 degrees and the distance traveled can pull a stronger spring past the gear on the opposite lever which responds positively to being pulled outwards because it will turn the wheel at the catch in the center. The whiplash pulling outwards on the descending should hypothetically be less than the pull on the lever on the opposite side because the multiplied force by the gear and the stronger spring there.

I think this drawing is on topic here for this subject. It incorporates mechanisms I am working on but is like similar to what you are drawing and it does not use the law of levers, it would in fact be powered by whiplashing swinging weights which have some centrifugal force and the fall of gravity descending on a wheel to whiplash the weights for that power.

[johannesbender]

I dont know if i am wrong , but i speculate that the rpm would not be as high as 50'ish if there were 2 long pendulums with heavy masses on , i understand a pendulum's mass does not affect its swing period and that the length is what affects the swing period , however a heavy mass would affect the loads they would put on the machine if we are looking at it from a mechnical advantage situation or simply that the natural point of rest for the pendulums would be a hanging position and that would put load on the axle to lift them .

however we have no idea what is happening inside the machine in conjunction with the pendulums if they were really placed on the cranks , its a really difficult situation to try and speculate something accurate , but i do think they could perhaps slow the machine down somewhat since the longer the pendulum the longer the period of the swings.

[daxwc]

JB: I dont know if i am wrong , but i speculate that the rpm would not be as high as 50'ish if there were 2 long pendulums with heavy masses on

But you are assuming the rotation has no gearing to the pendulum. Or maybe providing impulse to it through freedom of movement. You are right impossible to pin down.

[johannesbender]

Well like i said we have no idea what is going on inside in conjunction with the pendulums....

But it seems you assume the rpm is not the outer and axle rpm.

[Kattla]

Well, if most of the wheel was empty, that can also be helpful , as in ruling out the more complex solutions. Makes it easier.

And if the result of todays experiments are anything to go by, i think Besslers unidirectional wheels would be very very simple , and most
of the internal space actually be empty. The weights, rim, middle or centre? yes. It wouldn't matter all that much i think. Probaly better if
they share the same distance from centre though, to make it more balanced overall. But it would still be at least one or two major bumps
for each turn. Only used 33gram weights, and that was enough to shake the table..

I'll come back to that, once i done one or two more experiments to either confirm or burst my finding.

Spent the latter half of today in bed with a migraine, and noneworking painkillers which i eventually threw up. Gotten some more
back in which seems to be working.

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher, I’ve been thinking a lot about your device and how you hope to tap into the earths energy.

As I said before I am simply not sure about what you are doing and I have serious doubts about us being able to tap into the earths rotational energy.

Aside from anything else its not just the earth that moves.

Rotational Speed: ~1670 km/h at the equator.
• Orbital Speed Around the Sun: ~107,000 km/h.
• Solar System's Orbital Speed in the Galaxy: ~828,000 km/h.
• Milky Way's Motion in the Universe: ~2.1 million km/h.

It certainly doesn’t feel like I’m moving at over 2.1 million km/h and you would certainly think that any mechanism made intentionally or unintentionally that tapped into that movement would declare itself pretty sharply.

Hey again Graham .. quite a lot to unpack here - so I'll do it in bits ..

As I said on many occasions making the definitive math connection and path to the earths rotation is probably above my pay grade - however conceptually it boils down to this ..

=> Belief in the Laws of Physics, and Laws of Thermodynamics etc - at this stage I have no reason to throw some or all of them out with the bath water - so I am forced to form a hypothesis for energy in and out in a runner that fits inside the framework of these Laws as we know them, and ultimately defers to them at the planetary and cosmic level ..

** At the end of this post I will expand on this energy in and out conundrum further after first commenting on your other points and hopefully go some way to demystifying the hypothesis for you ..

I’m sure I have said this before but at the very least Bessler must have believed that what he was doing was basically a novel way of overbalancing a wheel and Karl must have thought the same but of course its possible that they were both fooled.

Neither was fooled Graham, imo - B. says categorically that his wheels are over-balanced wheels ( there is absolutely no doubt at all that that is what his runners were, overbalanced wheels - that is not in dispute, in any way, by most in the forum - but, as you speculate, B. found a novel, never before found and exploited, way to cause a persistent asymmetric torque ( i.e. more positive torque than negative torque n.b. all non-runners have equal torques, and is why they are non-runners ) that allowed the wheels, once set in rotation, to very quickly accelerate ( suggesting large imbalance of forces factor ) and very rapidly gain in momentum until establishing an operational rpm ( at its natural frequency ) ..

I have to say though that I don’t really believe that ( B. and K. was fooled ) but I would be happy for you to show how tapping into the earths rotational energy to the degree that you can lift large weights is possible.

Wish I could simulate that for you Graham .. but my sim is a mathematical construct that lives in my laptop .. all I can do is set the scene and work with what I have, hopefully letting your mind fill in the blanks and reach similar conclusions to me, or not, as the case may be ..

If your device is doing something special as you believe then I’m going to predict that its not going to end up tapping into the earths energy but rather help overbalance a wheel in the traditional way.

fwiw the 'traditional' non-runner has no excess torque, and has no excess energy to do Work .. I've always said B's. runners were overbalancing wheel formats Graham - the difference being that it has a special Prime Mover that maintains the asymmetric torque condition by "re-energizing" the wheel on a regular basis - this means energy must be entering the 'local system of the wheel' to overcome normal dissipative energy losses common to all machines in motion, and do external work whilst, maintaining a healthy rpm/momentum at its natural frequency - while imo energy is entering the wheel from outside to be repurposed, beyond the confines of the 'local system' all Conservation Laws of Momentum and Energy are satisfied and intact .. see below for an expansion of this local verses planetary Conservation enigma ..

I look forward to you showing how your mechanism can work.

As for me I plan on going into doing more real experiments in the New Year.

I wish you and everyone else here all the best,

Graham

Best to you Graham, and good luck with your experiments - I will attempt to turn on a light bulb moment for you, but it requires your engagement and input with the sim I show below ..

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

I have simplified previous sim experiments I have thought of and posted about in this thread - I came up with them to show that in certain mechanical instances COE perhaps can be violated ! - at the local level, either by making energy disappear or conversely making energy manifest, which I postulate can be repurposed to create excess directional torque making a runner - n.b. at the wider planetary level the Conservation Laws are assumed to balance - meaning that the earths ( to which a runner is attached ) rotational momentum is likely the source of the energy entering a runner at the 'local' level which acts like a conduit to be outputted again as it transits thru .. this is simply an exercise in rearward looking logic - the energy for Work came from somewhere - what is close at hand that is connected to the runner to give it some energy, other than environmental forces ?! ..

OK .. I would like you to study the WM sim below as an attachment - I also include an animation for others to follow thru - in it I have 3 scenarios of A1 cart - then B1 cart connected by a slack rope to B2 trailer - then C1 cart connected by slack rope to C2 trailer and then C3 trailer - all carts and trailers have a mass/inertia of 1 kg each and can only travel horizontally on a frictionless slide - gravity is on, air resistance is off, for an 'ideal' sim to not confuse the issues ..

Each lead cart is starts off immediately with the same velocity of 2 m/s - I know you also have used this shortcut to giving objects momentum or studying objects already in motion ( changing the x velocity in "properties" for an object ) - it is quite legitimate and avoids the complications of using forces and time and distance to give an object momentum and Work Done/Energy on them - no WEEP to consider ! ..

I note that the starting velocity and Momentum is the same for all carts A1, B1, C1 - the sim is paused after 3 seconds of run time - for all 3 comparison scenarios Momentum is conserved - however cart A1 has maximum KEt, and trains B and C orders of magnitude less KEt ..

I would not expect any of the carts and trailers to gain in TOTAL momentum ( there is no input of forces ) and the results show this i.e. Momentum is Conserved ..

However it appears the cart and trailers have "lost" KEt compared to A1 and to themselves i.e. Energy is NOT Conserved !

** If Momentum is Conserved as the sim shows and plots against KEt then what are your thoughts on why the energy was not conserved ?

** And if Energy was conserved would you expect the Momentums to increase with no inputs of forces to increase their velocities to account for COE ?

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

And imo .. if you can "disappear" energy in one situation then on the flip side it should be possible to manifest energy, with the caveat that Momentum is always Conserved and is the fundamental Law at the 'local level' ?!

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



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

[Fletcher]

Graham .. this is a separate post relating to the above because it deserves to be on its own ..

" FOLLOW THE ENERGY "

ALL machines use Energy/Work Done/fuel to produce Energy/WD - MA is a force multiplier and re-director to make the Work output easier ..

No matter how we slice and dice it - a runner had a input source of Energy to output as WD !

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

[daxwc]

Fletcher: I would not expect any of the carts and trailers to gain in TOTAL momentum ( there is no input of forces ) and the results show this i.e. Momentum is Conserved ..

However it appears the cart and trailers have "lost" KEt compared to A1 and to themselves i.e. Energy is NOT Conserved !

** If Momentum is Conserved as the sim shows and plots against KEt then what are your thoughts on why the energy was not conserved ?

** And if Energy was conserved would you expect the Momentums to increase with no inputs of forces to increase their velocities to account for COE ?

The meat and potatoes of the whole argument and well stated.


Roxaway59 I am no scientist or physicist but I also have problems envisioning using earth’s rotation. But not as you think; it is a mental one. If I change the experiment to I am in a moving car/train/boat I have no problem thinking of ways to react with the car.
Roxaway59 you figure out how to harness energy from a pendulum continuously in a moving car you have discovered the secret to perpetual motion.

[Roxaway59]

Hi Fletcher, I've had a few Jacks and coke so probably not the best time to read your post properly before I go to bed.

I'm not a big drinker just in case anyone was wondering its just the time of year.

To your first question though I would say that the energy is lost in the ropes in deformation / friction and heat.

This would depend on how you have it set but generally ropes are not that elastic.

However did you say that the kinetic energy was conserved?

I will read it properly tomorrow.

I hope your festive celebrations have gone well.

Graham