Part Three is the Charm

[Tarsier79]

It is a design most people give consideration to in one form or another.

It reminds me of similar Hydrostatic pressure designs, pushing down on actuators at the bottom of the wheel. A little harder to build though.

[Fletcher]

Yeah .. hydraulics would be very efficient (Pascal's Law), both in ease of force transfer mechanics and force amplification, and huge amounts of space to fit more mechs in etc. Thinking vehicle PSI braking systems.

Unfortunately Pascals Law and hydraulics is also is just a 'simple machine' that obeys Archimedes Law of Levers. No free lunch with simple machines, imo.

[mryy]

I think most of us follow your logic and apparatus reasonably well mryy .. fwiw, you are getting mainly questions about anticipated practical implementation aspects of the idea. Things you can reasonably answer with a mock-up, sim, or real-world build, or all three as you choose.

Speaking from my experiences seldom does a concept drawing not morph in the simming process (often seeking simplification, accuracy, efficiency, and flexibility to test input ranges), and again in the practical real-world when we hone the design some more.

Previously I asked about whether your concept could be adapted to something MT13ish i.e. half-full half-empty concept - requiring lever-weights to be lifted at the top. Personally I can't see an easy way to adapt it. Part of that question coming to me was a flash back to May 2005 when a member here called jim_mich published his Roller-Ball concept (I had kept a pic of it in my computer files) and I was thinking maybe your flung weight could drop onto his lever system, or something like it, rather than ride the wheel around etc.

Anyways, for a blast from the past I post up jim_mich's Roller-Ball gif. Also, I just did a forum search and found an animation of it he did at around the same time and saved it so we could see how he thought it might operate, or perhaps how it could be adapted. He animated in on his visual basic program of the time IIRC i.e. not a sim program.

Good luck.

Thanks for the heads up on what to expect with concept implementation.

Suppose that a prime mover is discovered. Can it be integrated with any conservative OOB wheels like the MT ones? My opinion is no. Some OOB wheels exhibit incompatible design features and/or inherent flaws. The prime mover is a physical structure after all imo. Take MT13 for example. If my lever apparatuses were used in place of the original ones, the hanging anchor figure will interfere with their operation at 6:00. (B. does praise its early weight-shifting ability though.)

B. mentions either explicitly or implicitly several MT wheels that can accept a prime mover:

"No. 9 Because one has learned that little is to be accomplished with the sphere-wheels like those just now seen in the figures and diagrams, one speculates on another principle, namely: on weights! 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.

No. 44 The sphere-method is reintroduced here. The problem shows 2 wheels: A is the main wheel, the axle of which has agear at B. B drives the somewhat larger wheel C at point D. At side E are spheres which fall out of side G at point H below and into wheel C at point I and then out of C again into A at point F. This problem looks good, but as sketched it does nothing special as long as no other application is present, for the wheel A must revolve several times before C revolves a single time. Thus not enough spheres move from the former into the latter.

No. 45 This is the previous invention, except that the one wheel C is much smaller than A. The explanation of the remaining letters C [sic], D and E are indicated by the figure itself.

No. 48 This is a sphere invention having a paternoster with pockets. A is a wheel. As the pocket-paternoster C raises the spheres, it passes over B, the axle of the wheel. At D the spheres are ejected into a channel. At E the spheres fall into the wheel, and at F they are ejected again into the paternoster. Here, an insufficient number of spheres is carried to the wheel A by means of the paternoster. The principle is good, but this figure will bring about no mobility by itself until completely different, additional structures have been provided." (Collins)

I feel all the above can be modified and cobbled with my prime mover. MT15 is a curious one:

"No. 15 This ratchet-wheel derives from the previous model, except that the tensions are somewhat longer and have an additional special weight at the external ends. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the superior weight." (Collins)

Mt15 uses two sets of weights (like my concept). From the language I feel as though B. was maybe anticipating a prime movement coming from one set but didn't find it and saw no potential ("...nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced..."). This is one of those OOB designs that cannot accept my prime mover. The tensions emanating from the axle obstruct the flight path of the flying weights.

The Roller-Ball Wheel resembles strutting peacock tail. Right off the bat I know it won't work because the ball and red vane weights are continuously in contact with some part of the wheel. It's a "tethered" wheel. Similar to MT15 the path of flying weights will be obstructed by those vanes emanating from the axle.

[Fletcher]

> Suppose that a prime mover is discovered. Can it be integrated with any conservative OOB wheels like the MT ones?

My opinion is no. Some OOB wheels exhibit incompatible design features and/or inherent flaws.

The prime mover is a physical structure after all imo.

B. mentions either explicitly or implicitly several MT wheels that can accept a prime mover:

"No. 9 Because one has learned that little is to be accomplished with the sphere-wheels like those just now seen in the figures and diagrams, one speculates on another principle, namely: on weights! 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.

No. 44 The sphere-method is reintroduced here. The problem shows 2 wheels: A is the main wheel, the axle of which has agear at B. B drives the somewhat larger wheel C at point D. At side E are spheres which fall out of side G at point H below and into wheel C at point I and then out of C again into A at point F. This problem looks good, but as sketched it does nothing special as long as no other application is present, for the wheel A must revolve several times before C revolves a single time. Thus not enough spheres move from the former into the latter.

No. 45 This is the previous invention, except that the one wheel C is much smaller than A. The explanation of the remaining letters C [sic], D and E are indicated by the figure itself.

No. 48 This is a sphere invention having a paternoster with pockets. A is a wheel. As the pocket-paternoster C raises the spheres, it passes over B, the axle of the wheel. At D the spheres are ejected into a channel. At E the spheres fall into the wheel, and at F they are ejected again into the paternoster. Here, an insufficient number of spheres is carried to the wheel A by means of the paternoster. The principle is good, but this figure will bring about no mobility by itself until completely different, additional structures have been provided." (Collins)

I feel all the above can be modified and cobbled with my prime mover.

MT15 is a curious one:

"No. 15 This ratchet-wheel derives from the previous model, except that the tensions are somewhat longer and have an additional special weight at the external ends. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the superior weight." (Collins)

Mt15 uses two sets of weights (like my concept). From the language I feel as though B. was maybe anticipating a prime movement coming from one set but didn't find it and saw no potential ("...nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced..."). This is one of those OOB designs that cannot accept my prime mover. The tensions emanating from the axle obstruct the flight path of the flying weights.

The Roller-Ball Wheel resembles strutting peacock tail. Right off the bat I know it won't work because the ball and red vane weights are continuously in contact with some part of the wheel. It's a "tethered" wheel. Similar to MT15 the path of flying weights will be obstructed by those vanes emanating from the axle.

I'll have to come back to your post tomorrow .. Friday 5.30 pm which is almost beer o'cl for me. SSS then off to the club to chat some, spill a few beers, and hopefully win some pool games - gotta get some good out of all this Newtonian Physics we study after all lol :7)

I will say this .. you make a good argument for a Prime Mover. And your Prime Mover would work particularly well in the types of wheels you highlight - what we don't know is .. is the back-torque of cocking and loading the flung mass etc less than the positive torque it imparts to the wheel to get a successive momentum gain ? And can it load, cock, and release the throwing mech and projectile high enough to reach the target ? Critical questions unfortunately that will need answers eventually.

[Sam Peppiatt]

johannesbender,
You brought up the text,---------------"the wheel will hold it's coarse serenely"----what the heck could that mean----------Sam

[johannesbender]

The phrase means "to keep sailing or travelling in the same direction" serenely ...

[Sam Peppiatt]

johannesbender,
Right, on the face of it. I was thinking of more of a hidden meaning of some sort---------------Sam

[Fletcher]

> Suppose that a prime mover is discovered. Can it be integrated with any conservative OOB wheels like the MT ones?

My opinion is no. Some OOB wheels exhibit incompatible design features and/or inherent flaws.

The prime mover is a physical structure after all imo.

RE : Wagner Critiques and JC's AP Bessler Response :

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) & Google Translate (right)

XXI .. Hier führet Wagner alle mechanische // Here Wagner manufactures all mechanical // Here Wagner leads all mechanical
Rüst-Zeuge her. // set-up witnesses here. // Prepare Witness.

Der Wagner kan fast nichts mehr dichten; // Wagner can hardly write any more poetry; // Wagner can write almost nothing more;
Spricht: Es wär’ gar nichts auszurichten // Says: There would be nothing at all to be done // Says: Nothing at all could be done
Mit dem mechanischen Rüst-Zeug; x. // With the mechanical armament; x. // With the mechanical armor stuff; x.
O! leug, du dummer Wagner, leug’. // O! deny, thou stupid Wagner, deny. // O! deny, you stupid Wagner, deny.
Schau, wie du leugest, nach der Reihe,’ // Look, how you deny, after the row,' // Look how you lie, after the row,'
Mein Mobile unmöglich seie, // That my mobile is impossible, // My mobile is impossible
Daß es nach seiner Eigenschafft // That by its very nature // That it is according to its own quality
Trieb’ eine mechanische Krafft. x. // Driven' a mechanical force. x. // Drive a mechanical force. x.
Weil ich nun in dem ersten Theile // Because in the first part // Because I am now in the first part
Gesetzet mehr als eine Zeile, // I have laid down more than one line, // Set more than one line,
Auf was für Art die Uberwucht // In what way the overbalance // In what way the overpower
In meinen Künsten sei gesucht; // In my arts is sought; // In my arts be sought;
So wil ich jenen Ort anpreisen; // So I will advertise that place; // So I want to praise that place;
Der werthsten Leser dahin weisen; // To point the worthiest reader there; // Point out to the most worthy readers;
Auch Wagner hört (wo er noch lebt), // Even Wagner hears (where he still lives), // Wagner also hears (where he still lives),
Wie ein Pfund mehr als eines heb’t. NB. // How one pound lifts more than one. NB. // Like a pound lifts more than one. NB.
Er schreib’t: Man hätt’ bis diesen Stunden // He writes: One would not until these hours // He writes: One would have until these hours
Kein solch Mechanisch Rüst-Zeug funden, // No such mechanical armament found, // No such mechanical armor stuff found,
Das zu der Kunst sufficient. x. // That to the art is sufficient. x. // That is sufficient for the art. x.
Er hat recht, Ich auch, wer’s erkenn’t? // He is right, and so am I, who can tell? // He's right, me too, who recognizes it?
Wie aber, wenn ich werde lehren, // But how, when I shall teach, // But how, if I will teach
So viel’ Rüst-Zeuge appliciren? // Apply so much armoury witness? // Apply so much armor?
Wird’s heißen: Nun versteh’n wir das; // Will it be said: Now we understand this; // It will mean: Now we understand that;
War Wagner nicht ein albrer Has’. x. // Was not Wagner an old hare? x. // Wasn't Wagner a silly rabbit. x.

John Collins AP translation :

XXI (b) Here Wagner lists all mechanical implements.

Wagner seems almost to have run out of fancies. He says nothing
can be achieved with "mechanical implements", the gist being that
my Mobile must be impossible because I designed it to be driven by
some "mechanical power". But did I not, in Part One, devote more
than one line to a discussion of the type of "excess impetus" that
people should look for in my devices? Once more I will humbly extol
the virtues of this passage to my next worthy reader. Even Wagner,
wherever he is now, will have heard that one pound can cause the
raising of more than one pound. He writes that, to date, no one has
ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required
task. He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why? What if I
were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then
people would say: "Now I understand!”

My Point ?! .. for Wagner to be correct that no mechanical implement is sufficient for the task, but Bessler says he is also right, then there must be a Prime Mover physical structure which is NOT a "mechanical implement".

N.B. Mechanical Implements ARE "Simple Machines", therefore, NO simple machines are sufficient for the task ..


IOW's B's. Prime Mover is NOT a simple machine, but is a physical structure / apparatus.


Questions .. Is mryy's apparatus a simple machine (mechanical implement) or not a simple machine ? Does it satisfy both B. and W. claims ?


Comment .. B. says he could teach the proper METHOD of mechanical APPLICATION ! NOT new type of implement, imo !

[ovyyus]

IOW's B's. Prime Mover is NOT a simple machine, but is a physical structure / apparatus.

Given that all machines (at least those Wagner was referring to) are 'simple', then the Prime Mover Bessler hints at was probably not an added-on simple machine. A Prime Mover is fundamentally a source of energy, such as heat or chemical or biological, etc. As we already know, Bessler's MT designs might work if a Prime Mover (not just another simple machine) is employed to lift their weights.

IMO, Bessler's problem can't be solved with a simple machine, or even a group of interacting simple machines. Bessler tells us that our work will be in vain without a Prime Mover. Bessler (and history) makes a simple point that should seem obvious to anyone who has spent their life searching for the 'right' simple machine.

[Sam Peppiatt]

ovyyus,
Just because you aren't smart enough to figure it out, doesn't mean anything-----------------------Sam

[Tarsier79]

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

Fletcher, you make a good point. There are many ways we could interpret his meaning. Bessler says he is right, but doesn't say what he is right about.

A chemical reaction both satisfies Physics and A misguided definition of PM.....It will revolve until the parts wear out.... (or the chemical component is no more/worn out). The yellow mercury?

I still hope and search for (probably foolishly) a mechanical solution.

[neuberlintourist1]

im still having problems imagine how it would work in my head in theory, someone needs to make an simulation to better visualize whats happening in the model

[mryy]

Thanks Fletcher for posting the original text of the AP XXI (b) passage and its accompanying translations.

Notice the use of the word "Rüst-Zeuge" throughout. The Collins translation renders it "mechanical implements", "mechanical arrangement", and "mechanical application".

German scientist/engineer Jacob Leupold (1674–1727) in his popular work Theatrum Machinarvm Generale seems to differentiate the words "Rüstzeug " and "Machine":

"Eine Machine oder Rüstzeug ist ein künstliches Werck, dadurch man zu einer vortheilhafften Bewegung gelangen, und entweder mit Erspahrung der Zeit oder Krafft etwas bewegen kan, so sonst nicht möglich wäre"

"A machine or tool is an artificial work by means of which one can achieve an advantageous movement, and either with a saving of time or effort, move something that would otherwise not be possible." DeepL

"A machine or armament is an artificial work by which advantageous movement can be obtained, and either with the knowledge of time or force, something which can be moved which otherwise would not be possible." Google Translate

http://diglib.hab.de/content.php?dir=ed ... troduction

May we deduce that "Machine" and "Rüstzeug" are similar but not the same in 18th Century German? Also the translated English word "armament" has military connotation. Didn't B. in an AP passage used words like shotgun, bow, sulfur/salt (gunpowder) and battle to describe his wheel? Is there an apparatus/movement in the wheel that is reminiscent of warfare?

P.S. My favorite lines: "O! leug, du dummer Wagner, leug" and "War Wagner nicht ein albrer Has". Wagner you dumb silly wabbit ... LOL

[Fletcher]

Personally I think it is high time everyone got familiar with Wagner's Critiques (2) again, and maybe it's new for some. A refresher couldn't hurt. A few minutes well spent I would say.

As I've said before I have a lot of respect for what Wagner wrote, and the way he wrote it. To me, he comes across as intelligent, thorough and thoughtful, with a rare level-headedness, given the gravity of the subject (excuse the pun). Sure, some bias comes thru, but on the whole imo he makes the complex easy to understand, albeit from the position of an unbeliever.

He offers many factual statements (he claims) which often get overlooked. He personally witnessed the Merseburg translocation test, and he read the letters between B. and the Royal Model Maker (Gartner) which he references in discussion.

An example is where he says the Merseburg lift test (about 70 lbs) 2 stories high took only 15 odd seconds (pssst .. don't tell Ken B. because he says many many minutes and you couldn't tell him different).

Below is the link to John Collins excellent web site "free-energy.co.uk" where the 2nd critique (of 1715) and the 1st critique (of 1716) can be found. n.b. yes, the years are correct. The critiques are listed on the left of the home page.

http://www.free-energy.co.uk/

Here is the links directly to John's website and the Wagner's critiques 1 & 2.

Note : the original German was translated by Andrew Witter and copyrighted by Al Bacon in 1997. John Collins copyrighted in 2011.

Brief but Thorough Examination 1715 (2nd critique) .. http://www.free-energy.co.uk/html/wagne ... tique.html

Now Fully Exposed Perpetual and Intrinsic Motion Machine 1716 (1st critique) .. http://www.free-energy.co.uk/html/wagne ... que_1.html

I have then copied down into a word file that I can reference quickly and highlight things of perceived importance to me etc.

[Fletcher]

Next .. I think it's important to explain what a simple machine is for those that might not know, or have forgotten.

Here's what wikipedia says .. Wagner puts it nicely too in his critiques.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_machine

A simple machine is a mechanical device that changes the direction or magnitude of a force. In general, they can be defined as the simplest mechanisms that use mechanical advantage (also called leverage) to multiply force. Usually the term refers to the six classical simple machines that were defined by Renaissance scientists:

Lever
Wheel and axle
Pulley
Inclined plane
Wedge
Screw

A simple machine uses a single applied force to do work against a single load force. Ignoring friction losses, the work done on the load is equal to the work done by the applied force. The machine can increase the amount of the output force, at the cost of a proportional decrease in the distance moved by the load. The ratio of the output to the applied force is called the mechanical advantage.

Simple machines can be regarded as the elementary "building blocks" of which all more complicated machines (sometimes called "compound machines" are composed. For example, wheels, levers, and pulleys are all used in the mechanism of a bicycle. The mechanical advantage of a compound machine is just the product of the mechanical advantages of the simple machines of which it is composed.

Although they continue to be of great importance in mechanics and applied science, modern mechanics has moved beyond the view of the simple machines as the ultimate building blocks of which all machines are composed, which arose in the Renaissance as a neoclassical amplification of ancient Greek texts. The great variety and sophistication of modern machine linkages, which arose during the Industrial Revolution, is inadequately described by these six simple categories. Various post-Renaissance authors have compiled expanded lists of "simple machines", often using terms like basic machines, compound machines, or machine elements to distinguish them from the classical simple machines above. By the late 1800s, Franz Reuleaux had identified hundreds of machine elements, calling them simple machines. Modern machine theory analyzes machines as kinematic chains composed of elementary linkages called kinematic pairs.

In short .. any "tool" or "implement" used / applied to modify Effort force against a Load force to do Work/Output (i.e. Law of Levers - leverage - mechanical advantage) is a "simple machine". All our OOB wheels are simple machines.

However any physical apparatus or structure (e.g. lets say a broom stick, or a wobbly jelly) NOT applied or used to modify force Input Output Ratio's etc are just a physical structure until they are applied to do Work.

It is the process of being applied to do Work of some kind that graduates the mundane and humble into a "simple machine".