If the`what goes down must come back up, to go back down again` aspect of a circular motion about an axle rules out the wheel then look surely for an alternative motion.
The Up: -1, Down: +1 (or reversed) rules out imbalance (<>0)
Thus instead of One up/One down there's two up (then it stays up?).... or two down (then it stays down?).
You rain down this mysticism on us, and I thought I did make a good summary of what you tried to say. Perhaps not.
So I assume you've made some progress on your Vesica-Piscis-project?
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
You rain down this mysticism on us?
I proposed that we should be looking for a motion, that drives a wheel & posed a simple enough question...why is nobody looking for this motion?
And nobody to date has justified their position.
I offered an example of a motion, pointing out that a figure of eight is a fundamentally different motion than a circle around an axle...that it should need to be pointed out... & that it was therefore more worthy of investigation than any wheel.
Nothing mystical there bar the motion itself & your reaction to the one I offered.....
Did I not go to lengths to point out that it's not an unbalanced wheel?
Seems no matter how much one might plead & beg you's lot to stop, if only for a moment, looking for the unbalanced wheel, still you immediately default straight to it....& then feel that you've offered a good summary of it for me?
As for my `Vesica-Piscis-project` then yes, of course I've made progress, thank you.
The more one wonders at something so the more one will see, progress is inherent to the process.....one wonders that almost all here can't see that.
Is it this, the VP, that prompts you to throw mysticism at me?
This thing that, working from within (Geometry) is well understood to be the base of all geometric form...well understood, working out (Sacred Geometry) to expand into the geometric expression for the whole of Creation?
Mystical & well understood don't go too well together me thinks.
If maths can form the whole of Creation from a rugby ball at the centre of two overlapping circles then that, like it or not, makes the ball/circles something else, by a country mile....& nothing, surely, could be more worthy of investigation when looking for the impossible....especially when it sits so nicely in/around your beloved wheel/axle.
"Everything you know will always equal the sum of your ignorance"
Did I not go to lengths to point out that it's not an unbalanced wheel?
Yes you made that very clear, but I don't automatically believe what I read.
I proposed that we should be looking for a motion, that drives a wheel & posed a simple enough question...why is nobody looking for this motion?
Why such speculation... you can't possibly have a clue about how and what we are [all] looking for.
The only conclusion is -which you already suggested- that probably some of us don't look where you look, or look at the same thing while also looking somewhere else...
I offered an example of a motion, pointing out that a figure of eight is a fundamentally different motion than a circle around an axle...
A square also has a fundamentally different motion - and so have Lissajous knots for example.
As of this topic you mentioned a figure eight: What kind of motion on such figure do you suggest, or do you have a direct link to an explanation?
I personally have another figure 8 under investigation, but not the same - so there's some interest if you like.
Mystical & well understood don't go too well together me thinks.
True... Obfuscation of relative easy to understand principles is the very definition of mystification.
We -as product of creation- could have come so much further without such nonsense...
But perhaps it also has its charms.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
ME...I have nothing for you to believe in? But I believe that there'll be no unbalancing of any wheel going on if/when any of us are lucky enough to be able to believe.
It's conclusion...and not, as you suggest, speculation. In the 12/13 years I've hung around I've never once seen anything, whatsoever, in regards to a motion. An action, yes...it's all action here right enough. It just astounds me that folk seeking perpetual motion ignore motions...unless it's everyone's little secret that is.....closet Jim-Mich's!
Likewise a `site dedicated to the investigation of Bessler's Wheel`....& a board dedicated to everything but....endless babble about him, the clues in this, that & just about everything, why on Earth I really do not know, because again...never seen anything remotely connected regardless.
Not really able to explain what I'm seeing in a fig 8 that interests me.
I'm hoping to post separately but it's one of those where you swear you can see something, can't quite believe it can, or ever could, actually do it & need to think some more before offering it up.
I mean....I invariably get zero replies to any idea I post but I don't mind that half as much as I would someone pointing out the obvious/stupid error.
"Everything you know will always equal the sum of your ignorance"
Can you see that this is a Vesica Piscis performing a figure of eight?
For it most certainly is....well, with a very slight adjustment to dimensions.
And I don't mean a figure of eight performing a Vesica Piscis.
And if you do see it then think on re the implications of such a movement...for it appears to facilitate the opportunity for constant falling within a wheel.
'Tis what I'm seeing at least....but I've learnt that doing the thinking & gaining the seeing leaves doing the telling in trouble. If you'd care to `think`....about the above then you'd see it. If not, you'd learn enough to be able to see , so much more easily, with a bit of extra telling from me.
A Vesica Piscis....not only the measure of the entire of Creation but also the Motion that drives/fuels it?
If true then no wonder it was called the Creator in times of old!
"Everything you know will always equal the sum of your ignorance"
I think I see what you are seeing, but if I am right, then you need to rotate the video in sequence with the movement of the arms and see how the pivot points would hold the weight. (Edit, are you seeing the pen as the wheels weights?)
I have used figure of eights chain links in my designs before, to tap the falling levers KE on the ascending side of the wheel at the same time as the levers fall on the descending side of the wheel, by linking the two lever gears together with the figure of 8, using ratchet gears to drive the wheel around via a static center gear.
It is on my to build list and has been for years, (2004) it about number twenty one on the list mainly because I will need lots of chain and gears to build it.
I only built one build last year and that still needs to be finished, although I have built one build this year already, but stripped it to adjust the timing.
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
Ok...some interest, thank you....Capturing the interest is the hard bit but once caught then hopefully it'll be interested enough to think & thus reel itself in.
Firstly...the video isn't quite right in that the rotating arms need to be longer so that both their pivots pass through the centre point. The X bar is twice this length....as is the distance between the two axles.
That being so, then draw a line between the two axles....this is a second x bar. Not fixed but able to move....same as the other one if the other one were held stationary....but both x bars can move here.
Draw a circle around each x bar & dump the bars, now attaching the rotating arms to the circles/discs instead.
In the central position, when this (still) parallelogram is fully open the two discs align, at the centre of a fig 8. Collapsed to either side the two discs form a Vesica Piscis & the motion between the two discs is a fig 8.....a shallow fig 8, not like a number 8, like the squiggling in Bessler's signature & in the grounds of Coral Castle...flattened.
Thing is.....these two discs turn in opposite directions & whatever those directions happen to be, they swop directions at the central point..
Now I'm not gonna go on & on about how to house/run this in a wheel rim but please imagine just one half of this....
Imagine a wheel & within it a smaller wheel, two thirds its size, running around its rim.
By some means the smaller wheel is sat at the horizontal, say 9 o'clock....so it wants to rotate clockwise to sit at the base of the larger wheel. But as it rotates it moves in, onto the axle, reverses its direction & continues on across the other side of that axle.....x2
As soon as it changes direction & sets off from the centre point its now again falling, now anti-clockwise...on the opposite side of the central axle.
Intriguing stuff I find?
Last edited by Gill Simo on Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm well impressed ME...but you're perhaps still doing what I did for a very long time. But as previously suggested & now hoped, you'll see the following with less trouble.
In your diagram....remove the two outer circles. In the position you show.. the two circles are one behind the other. Remove the cross bars...that's the one you show & the one that connects the two axles.....they merely represent the diameters of the two circles & you'll see that these diameters are twisted through 60 degree.
If you turn the circles around & back to central, one half of a fig 8, then that 60 degree goes to zero on to 60 degree...a 120 degree displacement between the circles. If you continue onwards then they swing back through that 120 degree.
Hope that's clear?
Each time the two circles re-align they do so twisted through 60 degree, first this way, then the other.
And the two rotating arms of the formed parallelogram are fully `flopped` one side or the other where a VP is formed.
This silly wee thing can kinda mess with your mind, first you see it, then it's gone, then you see something else....if you're finding it thus then you're on course, not off.
"Everything you know will always equal the sum of your ignorance"
Firstly...the video isn't quite right in that the rotating arms need to be longer so that both their pivots pass through the centre point.
Those dimensions are slightly off, because otherwise the system would lock-up; a bit like a 2D-gimbal-lock: at some point it doesn't know which to go (mathematically you are correct though).
I tried to follow your description, but things got lost at "In the central position, when this (still) parallelogram is fully open the two discs align". I can't create such parallelogram. So I stopped at [Fig.1]
That bowtie-figure should be able to rotate: the smaller sections turning somewhat around their centers in opposite directions. The longer 'X'-bars should go in wiggling both up or down.
I'm well impressed ME...but you're perhaps still doing what I did for a very long time
I don't know exactly what I'm doing. I just try to follow your instructions and see where it leads.
But I guess you lead me towards the movement between: [Fig 2] a collapsed-state; and [Fig 3] an open-state (the VP).
Where the center of the bar of one circle rides the rim of the other circle. That motion could be classified as a form of 'swimming'.
But [Fig 1] differs from Fig 2+3.
Attachments
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
Thank you again ME for taking the time to dwell on this with me....from your three diagrams & text then I'm pretty certain that you're still not there, you are kinda seeing things in the opposite....entirely expected as there is, as already stated, something Esher'esque in this simple thing.
So...let me please roll it back & run it again & I'll add some simple diagram/s myself this time.
The essence of the thing is this....Take a II'gram, as suggested by Bessler's toy C...two parallel sides length x, the other two length 2x.
Collapse this to one side or the other....this involves turning the two shorter lengths, both in the same direction. At the fully collapsed point you can continue turning the shorter lengths in the same direction to return to a II'gram, or indeed you could reverse the direction of both to again return to a II'gram....or, at this point only, reverse the direction of one shorter length, thus turning the two shorter lengths in opposite directions.
Opening out, from the collapsed position then you get Fig 1, part 3....this I suggest is the twist implied in Bessler's toy D to reach something resembling the arrangement that exists in toy E.
Fig 1 is the central, or balanced, position....in this position the two x bars intersect each other through their centre points, both centre points are at the same central point.
At this position see not two x bars but see that the two x bars are merely the diameters of two circles/discs.
So...take a disc, across it's diameter at both sides of its rim, place two pins. Repeat this with a second disc. Place the two shorter bars onto the two pins, arranging them one up, one down & then locate the pins of the second disc onto the free ends of the two shorter bars.
So now we have not two x bars intersecting at their centre's...we have two discs whose centres meet/align......Fig 2.
It's still the same II'gram......the two shorter bars forming one parallel pair, the two diameters, between the two pins of each disc, forming the other parallel pair.....I suppose it would've been more correct of me to say that it remains (still) a twisted II'gram.
However....collapse it one way or the other to Fig 3.
Now the two diameters, formally two x bars, sit in a straight line, each overlapping the other across the centre point...and the two discs, now employing those two diameters, form a VP.
Re the gimbal lock.....it is true that in the fully collapsed position the two shorter bars don't know which way to go, or rather, they have an option. Just as the twist was induced in this one position so it can also untwist.....and the two shorter bars that were turning in opposite directions can snap back into turning in the same direction, opening up a regular II'gram as opposed to a twisted one.
But I think these two shorter bars actually `know` because of the action involved.
Looking at your own diagram 1...If the shorter bar to the left turns clockwise, through 60 degree, to reach the centre point on the horizontal, the bar to the right turns a-clockwise, through 120 degree to sit on the same horizontal. Continue on & the left/clockwise bar does another 60 degree, the right another 120 degree, to return to the central/aligned position. Continue on and now the bar on the right turns through 120 whilst the left through 240.
In absolute terms the bar that reaches the centre point is, as such, stationary at this point, whilst the other bar is rushing across the horizontal at max velocity.
In other words, one acts as a stationary point whilst the other is flailed about it, then the opposite.
I think this situation, at the two fully collapsed points, is enough to guide & guard against any lock up at these two points. In a sense it's designed thus.....one momentarily locks whilst the other flails.
If you were to grab the two aligned discs at the 12 o'clock position, then you can peel them away from each other, in either direction, to the collapsed VP position...an equal turn of both discs, both moving through the same degree's, both at the same speed, both moving in unison through the figure of eight......but the two bars that connect the two discs still turn as described above....they turn continually in opposite directions, both speeding up/slowing down...and those speeds are only equal to each other at the central position.
I imagine that this flailing action, plus the fact that the two discs return to the central position 120 degree displaced each time has something to do with matters.
Attachments
"Everything you know will always equal the sum of your ignorance"
I still don't understand the parallelogram-part.
You still end up with (let's call it:) the bowtie formation.
And for this formation, the circles (/vesica pisces) are(/is) irrelevant.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
