Decoupling Per-Cycle Momemtum Yields From RPM

[Tarsier79]

And do you believe a sim program enough to rule out your theory?

[agor95]

Hi Tarsier59

Normally a person creates a sim or proto-type to prove their theory.

Do you test your ideas to prove yourself wrong?

Regards

[Art]

Bessler Quote "And when a pound falls a quarter,
It jumps four pounds to four quarters. x"

MrVib Quote "Yet if 'quarters' aren't 'weight' but some other field property by which weight is multiplied, such as height or velocity,.."

Got me to wondering about the meaning of "quarters" in the expressions - "give no quarter" and "close quarters" .

Both of these expressions seem to have originated in 17th century about and before Besslers time .

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/close-quarters.html

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/giv ... quarter%27

Quarter in these two contexts seem to carry the meaning of :-

- Quarter (or quarters) = lodging , - Space , - Position.


A possible ( "far out " meaning ? ) of Bessler's poem :-

"And when a pound falls from its position ,
it jumps 4 pounds to four positions."

[agor95]

Hi Art

It's more like space.

Like don't give them any space to fight in.

And fighting in a small space.

Of cause it's not a position we would want to be in.

But the meaning of 'position' is the same as 'situation'.

P.S. I have played games of pool were one ball falls from it's position and jumps
4 balls to new positions.

Regards

[Robinhood46]

That gives me another idea Agor.
The one weight falling a quarter and the leepfrogging of the weights (or whatever it was leepfrogging).
John believes the number 5 to be very important too.
How about 5 weights or multiples thereof, with one weight leepfrogging the other 4 and causing them to lift on the way? Each taking it turns to do the leepfrogging.

[Robinhood46]

1,2,3,4, space 1,2,3,4,space could be the reason for the "aboout 8 knocks per revolution". The space would be evolving radially around the wheel.

[agor95]

Hi Robinhood46

I am having a hard time getting my head around spinning one Rod.
Thing like Watts, Joules, speed and distance.
Then Inertia, springs and gravity.

Just checking out the foundations.

https://steampunks.ddns.net/kinetic_ind ... troduction

There are many routes members are evaluating.
I believe this route will create eight bangs per rotation.

It is for John to explain eight bangs per rotation with five sections.

Cheers

[Robinhood46]

I think lots of us are having a hard time getting our head around our thoughts.
Sharing our thoughts often results in negative feedback, but negative feedback is still better than no feedback at all.
I do think that John has good reason to believe that 5 is a critical number, i also think that "about 8 knocks" is a critical detail too, which we can accept as a fact. At least we can accept the judgement of an observer to have been that there are "about 8 knocks" as being a fact. This in no way gives us categorical proof that there were 8 knocks per revolution. What it does indicate, is that it was highly improbable that there were 5. Two mechanisms offset would give 10, which is nearer to 8 than 5, but i still think very improbable that an observer would have said "about 8".
7 or 9 being described as about 8 is the limit of error in my opinion.
Throwing the baby out with the bath water is a very common mistake. John has a lot of insight as to what is going on in that wheel, just because he has not managed to find the solution that doesn't mean he is talking nonsense.
Am i wrong to put too much importance on "about 8"? is John wrong to put too much importance on the number 5?
8 knocks can be described as "about 8" this is perfectly acceptable. This is very simple to achieve by seperating a wheel into eight sections, with each section doing "it's thing" at exactly (very nearly) the same place every rotation.
Alternating between 7 and 8 or 8 and 9, because of the two systems rotating at different rates, can also be described as "about 8". More precisely, it can only be described as about 7, about 8 or about 9. This is not so simple to achieve, but this doesn't prevent the principal itself from being simple all the same.
I'm pretty convinced there aren't 5 or 8 knocks, there are "about 8".
And we know for a fact that someone standing infront of the wheel, while it was rotating, thought that too.
Am i making the same mistake, i believe John to be making with the number 5, with the word "about"?
We are very quick at spotting other members being stuck in ruts, which is surprising really, from the bottom of a bloody great canyon we can't actually see anything. (smiley with a big grin)

[agor95]

Hi Robinhood46

I think lots of us are having a hard time getting our head around our thoughts.
Sharing our thoughts often results in negative feedback, but negative feedback is still better than no feedback at all.

I agree we are all in the same place.

Here we are reading MrVibrating post and it questions our understanding of the basics.

We could make negative comments, but we would not be a support group when we do.

There is no right or wrong just better personal understanding.
That is always positive.

P.S. "Throwing the baby out with the bath water is a very common mistake."
In some countries it is illegal :)

Cheers

[John Collins]

I published the following on my blog on 14th October 2011 and again this year. Apologies for copying and pasting but there is quite a lot to say.

“ He wrote, “a great craftsman would be he who can lightly cause a heavy weight to fly upwards, or as one pound falls a quarter, cause four pounds to shoot upwards, four quarters.� This seems on the face of it to be nonsense and yet by picking it apart one can get at the meaning.

Note that within the quote he mentions that there are five weights; i.e., one plus four, and each one is equal to one pound. Secondly, one pound falls a quarter. How do we define what he meant by a quarter? In this case he was referring to a clock and a quarter of an hour meant 90 degrees. How could this single fall cause “ four pounds to shoot upwards four quarters�?

It is very simple. In the first part above, the word ‘quarter’, referred to, not just 90 degrees but also to a clock. In the second part the word ‘quarter’ also refers to a clock but this time he has confused us by using the words ‘four quarters’. ‘Four quarter’s equals ‘one whole unit’. Each hour on a clock is divided into 30 degrees, so the words ‘four quarters’ meaning ‘one hour’ as used here equals thirty degrees. To paraphrase Bessler’s words, “a great craftsman would be he who, as one pound falls 90 degrees, causes each of the other four pounds to shoot upwards 30 degrees.�

You might think it would have been better to have said that when “one pound falls 90 degrees, it causes one pound to shoot upwards 30 degrees�, but that would have removed the information that five weights were involved, so it had to be four weights plus the one, and he liked to obfuscate otherwise it would have been too clear.

When he suggested that this advice would be understood by a great craftsman, I think he meant that it was possible to grasp his meaning if you recognised that at first sight it was impossible, and therefore you would have the mechanical knowledge to realise it, and work out the real meaning, and he was also informing us that those two angles were an important ingredient in the mechanism. Such a strong mechanical advantage would certainly ‘shoot’ a weight upwards ‘lightly’.

PS - Some people think I have never published any clues, except those on www.theorffyreuscode.com but you may be surprised to learn that I published this interpretation in a blog dated 14th October 2011, and the clock in September 2016 and many others at other times. It’s amazing to think I published this interpretation almost ten years ago and I see people are still trying to make four pounds shoot upwards by causing one pound to fall the same distance!�

PS, my explanation for five weights making about eight thumping noises as they land in the Kassel wheel is this. I have always believed the two directional wheels contained mirror a images of the mechanisms. By muffling the fall of one weight in each direction Bessler produced the impression of eight weights. Four plus one going backwards..

JC

[Robinhood46]

John, your explaination of how the 8 knocks could have been created, is certainly plausible.
I do think it is improbable.
If the mirrored weights that aren't making the wheel turn are doing some knocking, then they are obviously moving. As much as the movement needed to create a knock, which we don't really know the intensity, doesn't need to be great, it is still negative to the rotation.
I have a lot of difficulty accepting that Bessler would sacrifice any energy whatsoever, in his wheels that are very limited in power, just to fool us into thinking there are a different number of weights than there actually are.
In my opinion, if mirroring the weights was needed to have a bidirectional wheel, he would have stayed with the unidirectional.
If your thoughts are that each set of 5 weights is 4 knocks plus one muffled, i would be more inclined to think that the two sets of five are both working to turn the wheel and that they are offset to eachother.

[John Collins]

It’s just an explanation Robin covering the five weights in my design. But I still think the mirror image is right.

Also posted details of the hidden clock in Bessler’s first drawing in DT, on
Saturday, 3 September 2016, and again in October this year.

🙂. JC

[agor95]

OK I have done a JC blog site read/download.

I feel enlightened in contrast to the dark recesses of trevor's shadow blog.

Thanks.

[Tarsier79]

Normally a person creates a sim or proto-type to prove their theory.
Do you test your ideas to prove yourself wrong?

Where ever possible, when I am trying to prove or disprove a theory, I try to reproduce a physical build to back up a sim. Personally, I mostly trust, but wouldn't write off or claim success on a design based on a sim.

[MrVibrating]

Instead of accumulating momentum, why not just prime the system to its unity threshold then perform a single reactionless acceleration, thus immediately OU off the bat, but collecting it directly as input GPE instead of KE?


This would seem much more consistent with the characteristics of B's wheels..

..but would also neatly solve the riddle!

• it'd 'lightly / easily throw a heavy thing high'

• the unity threshold for a 25% accumulator per the Toys page gain cycle is, literally, 'four quarters' - 4 * 25%-efficient momentum gain cycles, accumulating as 75% loss on the first cycle, 50% net loss on the second, 25% net loss on the third, unity at the fourth and net 125% of unity at the fifth

• IOW the GPE output by a drop is used to accelerate four other, equal, masses up to their unity threshold velocity.. hence "if 1 lb falls a quarter, it jumps / shoots four pounds to four quarters"

- in the premise 'quarter' is obvs. height, but in the clause, he could be referring to the unity threshold of 'four quarters' (ie. a certain speed)

- MT 134 also seems to play on the same concept, depicting 'four quarters' per radial armature..


Thus the riddle is not describing gain itself, but rather a system primed to its gain threshold, where OU is inevitably the next thing that happens.


IOW there's isn't any 'magic config' that produces OU - it's not a 'mechanical arrangement' that accomplishes the task - so much as a magic state - ie. inclusive of the config's speed..

..that threshold speed where relative and absolute energy levels perfectly coincide; below which you're under-unity, and above which, over.

For two 1 kg masses, the unity threshold's at 2 m/s. For two 1 kg-m² inertias, it's 2 rad/s. At this speed it makes little difference how the system was accelerated up to this state, since it's unity either way.. IOW you might as well do so via any conventional means, foregoing the first three, lossy, asymmetric acceleration & collision cycles.

So for a rotating system principally composed of two interacting 1 kg-m² MoI's, at a speed of exactly 2 rad/s a single reactionless inertial interaction vectoring one mass upwards should produce an instant OU GPE yield, in exactly the same way it'd otherwise produce an OU KE gain.

"1 lb * ¼ in, for 4 * (1 lb * ¼) out" is describing an equilibrium - a balancing, or tipping point - a system poised and ready to break mechanical unity, rather than the gain itself - the ostensible allusion to an effective GPE asymmetry being witty misdirection - chaff, basically - that previous translators have fallen for, in extrapolating and interpreting the riddle instead of just directly translating the carefully-crafted conundrum as it was actually posed..

In short, a mere picture of the viable mechanism wouldn't be a complete representation of the exploit - this unity threshold velocity being absolutely essential to the mechanics of using an effective N3 break to "throw a heavy thing high" / gaining energy in the form of GPE rather than KE..



..why thank you ladies..