MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code

[ME]

there doesn't seem enough time for a weight to fall and do any good.

The mechanism should keep accelerating until it becomes ineffective.
A mechanism that operates by gravity should stop working when weightless.

When I look at WaltzCee's centrifugal list then I see that a mechanism which should normally experiences 1g in gravity, will experience 2.96 g (g+cf) at the bottom and -0.96g at the top (g-cf).
Which is weird, because I would have guessed that the break even point 'should' (?) be at 1g: Or, 2g at the bottom and 0g (=weightless) at the top.

Does that mean, when the mechanism is basically unaffected by centrifugal, that the working principle is not moving with rotation?

Or does that mean it operates near the axle:

It depends somewhat on the radius the weights move to and from !

For a 1g centrifugal:
50 RPM -->diam: 2.347 ft
40 RPM -->diam: 3.667 ft

[Fletcher]

Does that mean, when the mechanism is basically unaffected by centrifugal, that the working principle is not moving with rotation?

Or does that mean it operates near the axle:

I think that his wheels must be affected by Cf's, but not greatly (by efficient design) i.e. Cp's/Cf's are not the driving force of his wheels, imo. Tho they must affect it by consequence of rotation, because they accelerate and top out at a given rpm, internal forces of motion balance again, else they would accelerate indefinitely, which they didn't.

The working PM principle must have moved around with the rotation. Additionally B. said nothing hung from the axle and all moved around together and retained the ability for free movement (paraphrased).

Ultimately what I've suggested in the last few posts is that an in-series hung together lws system was part of brute force duet with the Prime Mover apparatus, possibly a looped Chain (like a circular rope with mass). And that these worked in tandem in a positive feed-back loop to create continuous positive torque, until Cf's topped out the rpm.

I know Wubbly was having trouble following Oystein's concept of the Preponderance Principle (3,5,8) so I'll address that context briefly. The secondary lws system would have no beneficial torque characteristics i.e. it is problematic and only creates temporary torque conditions and none that are asymmetric in a helpful way. Yet it can displace something else by leverage that might have positive torque characteristics, like a Prime Mover. IOW's the normal 5,3,8 non-preponderance scenario can be repurposed and when combined become a 3,5,8 Preponderance scenario i.e. excess weight, excess impetus, preponderance.

But CoE (Newton's Laws) says this is impossible. That while we can use a connected lw system to manipulate height and width internally inside a wheel any excess velocity (KE) left over from transitioning of lws can not 'lift' (leverage) a Prime Mover mass enough to create excess continuous torque ! Damn straight !

So imo there was a 'trick' (read workaround) that B. used and Karl observed imo. One that Karl was surprised no one had thought of, was mechanically relatively simple to execute, so much so that a carpenters boy could take a look and start building it without thinking too much. And so simple Karl didn't want to buy it, and B. was worried a buyer would want their cash back ! Kinda says it all !

[ovyyus]

Weights that can only move around the rim (no radial motion) would be immune to cf.

[Fletcher]

FWIW .. the pic below is what I deduced to be the MT10 correct handle-construction, which imo is a necessary part of the in-series lws scenario to work as Bessler depicted them in all his hung together principles. Ropes from levers to weights etc do not lift like he shows. Something was missing to accomplish movement of that kind.

The pic below is a simple 8 lw template. Each lw has a 'Gaffle' (in blue) which aligns and runs in a slot. Each Gaffle is connected in series to the next by a rope and pulley system in red. Together they hang down on the descending side creating a lifting Jack ! More arms lifts more weight. They also give speed to the lifting of a top lw, perhaps to impart KE and momentum to something else if desired.

N.B. the Gaffle is also what I think is the reference to the 'correct application of the Stork's bills' and the 'something special behind them' quips of MT's 38 and 41. FWIW a normal scissor application (Stork's Bill) of as many sections as you want can be reduced to a simple single Gaffle imo, doing the same job.

And so in my mind the correct handle-construction and the special nature of SB's and correct application of them were the one and same Gaffle handle that conferred leverage advantages on the system.

For those with WM I include a generic sim so you can have a play and see things in motion for yourselves. Note the pic in the attachment is only representative of a generic concept that I have re-built many different ways and configurations.

[WaltzCee]

Maybe the sum of gravity and centrifugal force at the bottom loaded a spring by allowing
the mass at the bottom to slip a little bit. Then the energy trapped in that spring restored
the weight to where I came from at the top, and the extra energy in the spring was used to
imbalance the wheel somehow. The imbalance might have been moving the weight
around the rim as ovyyus suggested.

Maybe that's what Jim Mich was looking at. I sure miss that crusty jaded old bastard. :-)

Good discussion. Good busy.

[WaltzCee]

If two weights on the rim are compressed together that will drive the center of mass out. If
the weights are driven apart, their Collective centers of mass will be pulled closer to the
center of rotation.

That could cause the imbalance, weights working in pairs.

[ME]

I think that his wheels must be affected by Cf's, but not greatly (by efficient design) i.e. Cp's/Cf's are not the driving force of his wheels, imo.

I'm arguing that a.cf=G is the limit of a mechanism to get affected by gravity.
The correct-Handle Construction-design would just be locked to the rim, and would not do anything until friction slows it down and the centrifugal acceleration at the top becomes less than 1 G. Only then can this mechanism ever so slightly return to the center, do it's thing, speed up yhe wheel, and push the weight back to the rim.

Weights that can only move around the rim (no radial motion) would be immune to cf.

But can they move by means of gravity? When the centrifugal acceleration (a.cf) close to the rim is much higher that 1 G?

Maybe the sum of gravity and centrifugal force at the bottom loaded a spring by allowing the mass at the bottom to slip a little bit. Then the energy trapped in that spring restored the weight to where I came from at the top, and the extra energy in the spring was used to imbalance the wheel somehow. The imbalance might have been moving the weight around the rim as ovyyus suggested.

That could counter the "a.cf=G" argument.

When we skip the slipping part maybe we can determine a crude logical consequence of such spring system, or something that effects in a similar result.

(For the 4.6ft diameter situation, and Gravity down = -g)

At standstill there's a spring pushing a weight-system inwards with some springforce Fs= mg
-Thus at the bottom it balances with -mg+Fs=0, and at the top it experiences -mg-Fs=-2mg

So at maximum rotation where the centrifugal force is Cf=2mg the situation is:
-At the bottom it experiences -mg+Fs-Cf= - 2mg, and at the top it experiences -mg-Fs+Cf=0

I hypothesize that this may indicate that the driving force (whatever it does) is at the top. The bottom mechanism 'floats'. And any effect/action here would interfere withe that centrifugal theory.
At max speed the system is out of driving force when the top mechanism 'floats' when the centrifugal force balances with the spring force. The bottom mechanism is now centrifugally glued to the rim.


Perhaps the same with the next almost-4g-situation.
As a counter-note: There's no 3g situation. So "4g" could 'simply' indicate a doubling effect of an implementation that's not a spring.

[ovyyus]

The imbalance might have been moving the weight around the rim as ovyyus suggested.

Perhaps a single stationary weight held out at the rim and handed on by a series of wheel mechanisms?

A stationary weight isn't subject to cf.

[Fletcher]

I know we are just think tanking .. Basically the Cf theory is problematic because of inherent symmetry. 'g' is always vertical, 'a' (centripetal => v^2/r) is outwards at right angles to the rim.

As ME says at the top position the vectors of accelerations for Cp/f's and weight force ('g') are equal and opposite directions and magnitude at max rpm i.e. vertically upwards and the other down zeroing out or NETTING OUT. At 6 o'cl the two vectors are in the same vertical direction downwards doubling up the acceleration. At any equal height position of equal radius each side of the vertical thru the axle the net forces from these accelerations are the same tho varying with position. A vector diagram of forces shows this problematic symmetry.

And I think we all agree that we need to break the acceleration and force symmetry !

..........

A single stationary weight at the rim (say 3 o'cl) handed on by a series of wheel mechanisms isn't subject to cf. However there exists another problem. Because of the coherent nature of the Laws of Physics no movement of transfer of Momentum or KE can occur unless an object with mass first loses GPE, which must be recovered per sector in this scenario. All-the-while imparting angular momentum to the carrier wheel and mechanisms accelerating them at no cost of single weight GPE. Springs or elastic potential could provide Spring PE and be employed but that also needs replenishing each revolution whilst accelerating the carrier wheel at no additional cost to energy.

As improbable as it seems continuous imbalance of forces from weight displacement seems to provide the asymmetry of forces required to accelerate the carrier wheel topping out at max rpm. The max rpm probably a function of the nullifying effects of cf's or weights no longer able to 'fall' relative to their compartment or sector they are contained in, imo.

[Fletcher]

To break the symmetry of false PM wheels we could with single minded determination go it alone and keep on experimenting and cover the ground as B. said he did to be successful i.e. showed great diligence, and resilience.

We could also choose to view his MT accompanying notes as fanciful (lies and deflections) rather than factual (objective truth).

I take a middle road. Sometimes useful metaphors to a point, but not the entire information or context needed. A can short of a six pack. If I wasn't supposed to do that why did he write the accompanying MT notes as he did ?

[Georg Künstler]

Fletcher wrote:

At any equal height position of equal radius each side of the vertical thru the axle the net forces from these accelerations are the same tho varying with position.

True for a fix axle, for a loose axle it is different.
When I roll my octagon wheel in the Hamser cage, the CoG is moving up and down and left to right and reversal, the forces are not the same anymore.
And to the springs, they are compressed on one side when going up, and on the other side when going down. They are compressed by their own weights when going around.

So the radius of the weight path is changing and also the height is changing.
They are wobbling.

Fletcher wrote:

And I think we all agree that we need to break the acceleration and force symmetry !

I agree, but in a different way. we break the the acceleration symmetry by slowing down the movement of the weight, we give gravity the time to act.
So it is a delay of fall. We generate a speed difference within the construction.

[Fletcher]

I accept your argument Georg, about what is happening inside your Octagon Wheel in terms of GPE and radius changes of the Hamster Cage. The question for me is, are there in fact consistent/persistent asymmetric forces that continue the rotation once started, unaided, which causes it to accelerate ? I'm guessing it won't self-start ?

Springs are generally accepted to be conservative, they give what they receive and not a penny more, perhaps less ;7(

I guess I am interested in the "Anatomy of Preponderance" rather than the Theory, and linking the two thru MT (the comments and woodcuts, and order/groupings etc), as I see it. Much as Wubbly's thread draws attention to.

If yours should self-rotate and accelerate then I would have to widen (again) the scope of my investigations and discussions, obviously. Best as always Georg !

[WaltzCee]

. . .
Perhaps a single stationary weight held out at the rim and handed on by a series of wheel mechanisms?

A stationary weight isn't subject to cf.

That's true a stationary weight isn't.

I think this has been an excellent discussion. The two things I've taken away from it are

• Any movement of Weights within any wheell better get moving fast
  because they don't have much time to do their moving.
  
  And they're going to be moving against some horrific centrifical Force.

This certainly isn't low-hanging fruit.

[ovyyus]

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 - letter to Leibniz, examination of Merseburg wheel, 19th December, 1715

[Fletcher]

That realization is quite powerful Walt .. but how many of us imprint it to long term memory ? If you do it rules out multitudes of gravity wheel concepts that simply can not keep up, even if they could create excess torque.

I'd suggest short, sharp, and purposeful movements are the order of the day.

ETA:

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 - letter to Leibniz, examination of Merseburg wheel, 19th December, 1715

I think Bill Wolff's is the only imo unimpeachable first-person eye-witness account of actual mechanics (levers) inside B's. wheels. I can't remember any other description of actual parts seen by a reliable arms-length source.