Flippin' Flywheels

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Post Reply
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

We know the stampers are lifted and dropped twice per cycle.

So if radially-sliding masses are dropped against gravity, while applying torque to the wheel, we then need some means to re-lift them.


If we attempt this by turning the mechanism upside-down, using gravity as an impromptu centripetal force to haul / drop the masses back inwards, then we'd need one full rotation per lift and drop cycle.

So the numbers don't add up... unless, there's somehow two rotations of these internal 'stampers' per cycle of the main wheel.

For example, for one stamper to provide one interaction per 180°, it has to be rotated through 360° - a 180° lift, followed by a linear drop, followed by a second 180° lift to begin the second half of the cycle.

In short, if the hint is that each radialy-sliding mass torques the axle twice per cycle, but also must be reset by gravity, then these internal masses need turning upside-down twice per cycle.

So the internal mechanism must be rotating twice as fast as the external housing.


Is there anything else that might correlate here?

Yes! Possibly..


The Kassel / waterscrew woodcut depicts two pendulums - the left one we can see fiarly clearly, and so estimate its period... but the second pendulum, on the right, is obscured by the water tank - its period, indeterminate.

But the pendulums also have those horizontal beams in trunion bearings - an elaborate design, considering they're not physically connected up. And also that IIRC no witnesses mention them.

If you measure the relative lengths of those horizontal beams, it's exactly a 1:2 ratio!

Furthermore, notice how they align to the 'input' and 'output' ends of the waterscrew aparatus!? I put input & output in scare quotes as it's somwhat ambiguous which is which - water can of course flow back down the screw, exerting torque on the way down..

In fact, given that the entire apparatus must be turned upside down in order for the front stamper to be raised by the rear lever, and also that the wheel direction must be reversed, this reverse flow of the water through the upturned screw would be just the ticket for our reverse torque..

In order to raise either stamper on this Kassel etching twice per cycle, as indicated by the axle cams and Bessler himself, the entire drawing has to be vertically rotated twice.

But in order to raise both stampers, each in turn, the entire mechanism as shown can only oscilate 360° back and forth:

- turn the whole picture one way up and the water goes down, torquing the screw, turning the wheel and raising then dropping one stamper twice

- upend it the other way again and the water drains back the other way, applying reverse torque, which raises and drops the second stamper twice


..so perhaps the water screw is fulfilling the same purpose as the stampers and pendulums in the Mersburg engravings?

Note that we again have two rising water pulses / surges applied by the corners vs sides of the square wheel, per stamper lift.



Another angle may be that the square wheel is also a window, that the water rises through.

So, it rises through one window...

..and then drains away through another, below.. (unless your image is still upside down)

This might also tie in with the various 'windows' in the two Mersburg engravings - note that the rope rises first through the small cut-out 'window', then passes through the large 'window frame' formed by the pendulum posts (12,13), before exiting through the window in the wall. If you're stoked on things that pass through other things, that's the hat trick..

Yet another suggestion of alternating torques could be read into the reversed locks on the Mersburg woodcut (24,42) - in the other, copperplate, engraving, the left pane shows a heart-shaped lock, and the right pane, one shaped as a right triangle. Doesn't shout anything coherent off the page at me. But here, he's drawn both as equilateral triangles, and inverted their horizontal directions along with their actual numbering!

What are they indicating? Does this tie in with the 'quadrants' thing re. the windows? IE. do the locks symbolise a pair of neighboring quadrants in a GPE cycle, perhaps? Opposing horizintal directions? My suspicion is that they represent the counter-torques or counter-forces being applied to the net system - perhaps suggesting equal opposing counter-forces, as i was playing with previously... Note again that the bracket-bearing on the upper left wall, and corresponding occlusion errors in the top of the pendulum, implies that it is not simply the pendulums which swing against the frame's static inertia, but also - and perhaps perferentially - the rest of the system which is torqued against the pendulums inertia..

IOW the 'stator' is the outer wheel housing and axle, and it is turning in response to counter-torques..

In the Mersburg drawings, the pendulums and, perhaps also, the locks, seem to represent equal opposite torques or inertias.

In the Kassel drawing, the wheel and waterscrew are also in equal opposing rotations (the square wheel and 'crosspiece' on the axle have equal dimensions, so it's 1:1 gear-wise synch).


Interstinger and instrestinger, eh?


I think the concept i opened this thread with might be heading in the right direction, if a little off-track.. but there's some important detail that i haven't quite grasped yet.

Small steps though.. if gravity is the free centripetal force powering the system - god only know how that works out or why there's an asymmetry, but just assuming, for the sake of hypothesis, that that is what the implied upwards-falling stampers mean - then this in turn implies that the inner system of rising and falling weights must also be running faster than the external system - twice as fast, in this case (or maybe equal speed in the opposite direction, exploiting intrinsic vs relative velocities).

And this in turn tallies with Bessler's claim that given enough time, he could build a wheel that turned slowly with high torque whilst sounding a steady rhythm.

It could also offer a principle for consistent operating speeds when loaded vs unloaded, since it is the stator performing the work, not the internal rotor and its intrinsic loads.


No idea what comes next, gonna spend some more time staring at these images and try to divine the provenance of this counter-force driving the net system that i'm convinced must be our quarry..
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

Hang on, if we apply the same blanket (nay, dumb) assumption that everything shown can be regarded as connected up at the same instant (hence the box is being lowered if the stampers are being raised)... then by the same logic, if the wheel is also locked stationary to the background, and the 'background' (ostensibly earth / the stator) is actually the wheel body and axle, and we also have this bearing-bracket on the left wall, to which the whole stamper mechanism is pivoted.. then the counter-rotating mechanism is actually the whole stamper assembly, nestled between the wheel and that wall-bearing..!

The stamper box would thus counter-rotate the net system..
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3134
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

I don't think this line of reasoning is what the drawings are meant to convey. But you're welcome to continue, I just don't see it.
Art
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1019
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:55 pm
Location: Australia

re: Flippin' Flywheels

Post by Art »

Go on Ecc1 , have a go !

I would be interested in seeing a number of different interpretations , - never know where they will lead !
Have had the solution to Bessler's Wheel approximately monthly for over 30 years ! But next month is "The One" !
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

eccentrically1 wrote:I don't think this line of reasoning is what the drawings are meant to convey. But you're welcome to continue, I just don't see it.
Just thinking aloud really, trying out hypotheses.

The central one being, that the 'elements' being linked up in these drawings are also the essential components of an inertial torque induction asymmetry. They're further 'toys pages'.

The pendulums symbolise angular moving masses, the stampers radially moving masses, and both types of motions induce positive and negative inertial torques.


Two of the angular torques are synched to cancel, but what of the third?


Maybe the solution involves the interplay of the radially-induced +/- torques with this 3rd angular inertial torque...?

Something to try over the weekend..
mickegg
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 383
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:06 pm
Location: Berkshire,England

Post by mickegg »

Hi Mr V

Hmm.....don't forget that Bessler's wheels ran without any external fixtures being connected.

Regards

Mick
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3134
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

re: Flippin' Flywheels

Post by eccentrically1 »

Maybe the solution involves the interplay of the radially-induced +/- torques with this 3rd angular inertial torque...?
I still say you're hoping to find a loophole in in N3. Bessler did too, but we know that isn't the solution, and if that's what the drawings are conveying, or you think they are, then it's a red herring like you said. That's the way I see it.
If the bricks or stampers or water were returning the total linear and rotational energy back to the wheel, then the wheel isn't doing any work on them. That's what you're saying in a different way.
If the rope had been drawn wound the other way round the axle, you could still say the drawing shows a force interplay.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

mickegg wrote:Hi Mr V

Hmm.....don't forget that Bessler's wheels ran without any external fixtures being connected.

Regards

Mick
Yes of course, for now, i'm supposing only that the pendulums represent angular inertias and momentums, and likewise, the stampers are a straightforward example of a linear motion coupled to an angular one, so in a rotating system either action will produce an inertial torque:

- moving a mass outwards raises the MoI and reduces the RPM and RKE

- moving one back in does the opposite

- accelerating a mass ahead of the rotation applies a counter-torque

- decelerating one behind the rotation applies a positive torque


..and then, combinations of these can be made to add or cancel..

So for example, i've already tried cancelling the two opposing torques induced by CW and CCW angular accelerations / decelerations - and it works sweet, just as planned. It just doesn't seem particularly useful, for now.

Maybe i should try eliminating the other combos?


EG. we could accelerate a mass ahead of the rotation, inducing a corresponding counter-torque on the wheel, while at the same moment, pulling another mass inwards, applying a positive inertial torque.


So the counter-torque from the angular acceleration, and the positive torque from the MoI reduction, would cancel...

...and we still have our accelerated angular momentum.

But we've also spent a load of energy doing work against CF.


The only other permutation is; decelerate a mass while letting another fly outwards under CF: again, the two induced counter-torques would presumably be equal and opposite, but now we've spent a load of CF PE and also have a decelerated angular momentum.

Dunno.. Maybe a third angular momentum (ie. third pendulum) could form some basis for asymmetry..?

All i know is, we have some linear motions and some angular ones, and some kind of funky relationship between them.

"Fundamental research is what i'm doing when i've no idea what i'm doing" - Werner Von Braun


Also, why'd no witnesses mention these pendulums?

And don't forget Bessler's intriguing claim that his wheels could gain yet further advantage from attached loads such as conventional machinery! So, in some sense, any attached load really is a functional part of the OU mechanism.. if not a window on it.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Re: re: Flippin' Flywheels

Post by MrVibrating »

eccentrically1 wrote:
Maybe the solution involves the interplay of the radially-induced +/- torques with this 3rd angular inertial torque...?
I still say you're hoping to find a loophole in in N3. Bessler did too, but we know that isn't the solution, and if that's what the drawings are conveying, or you think they are, then it's a red herring like you said. That's the way I see it.
If the bricks or stampers or water were returning the total linear and rotational energy back to the wheel, then the wheel isn't doing any work on them. That's what you're saying in a different way.
If the rope had been drawn wound the other way round the axle, you could still say the drawing shows a force interplay.
LOL if the rope was wound the other way, then CCW rotation of the wheel would raise the box of bricks while operating the stampers. Everything would be consistent with the explanations and we wouldn't be having this discussion..

Having two outputs connected in parallel to an ostensibly OU wheel is perfectly coherent.


Having two inputs would make no sense - but then that's not what's shown.

You're right i still think an effective N3 violation is our best (only) bet.

A passively varying MoI, or an unbalanced inertial torque.. the universe is designed to pay out under these circumstances, and they are inherently controllable conditions - because of CoM, if MoI goes down, V and RKE go up, so there's a ready made coupon system for cashing in on passive MoI variations.

Because rest mass and gravity are invariant, there's no corresponding off-the-shelf energy producing covariance in gravitational systems. If we could generate asymmetric input vs output GPE integrals, great, but we can't, or we'd be doing so already. That's a definite dead end.

A GPE asymmetry would also be something of a blunt instrument - drop when heavy, lift when light... you gain the GPE difference each cycle. Sweet, but about as complicated as imagining a free candy machine.

Whereas energy from an N3 break has mathematical elegance. It follows beautiful logic - a logic trap, for nature. Making it pay out under its own terms, hoist by its own petard, dutifully conserving that momentum right out of the CoE ballpark, by inviolable contract. The covariance of MoI to RPM is set in stone. But, because of N3, so is the half-square accumulator on RKE.

So playing purely by the rules, if we can find a way to modulate MoI linearly, for equal input energy per cycle, we gain exponential energy as RPM's rise.

If input energy / cycle is also a function of time (ie. such as when an input force is a reactive force), then again we have a potential for asymmetry in that input energy per cycle decreases with rising velocity, while net RKE evolves as the half square of rising velocity..

In a nutshell, Noether's theorem, for our purposes, can be reduced to a closed loop trajectory through a static field yielding zero net energy (ie. gravity and rest mass interactions), but also implies the corollary conjuction that if the forces are time-dependent, then all bets are off and classical CoE simply does not apply.

Inertial interactions are inherently time-dependent. The relationships between momentum and KE are time-dependencies, and are bound together by Newton's 3rd law. Control N3 and we control the exchange rates.

What makes you think an N3 break's been eliminated? It remains the single most consistent explanation..

It's the most consistent reason why his wheels had to be statorless. It's the most consistent explanation for the consistent loaded vs unloaded running speed. It's the most consistent theory for how a wheel that takes extra time to build could turn slowly yet with high torque, while sounding a steady rhythm.

Inertial interactions have this time-dependence that gravitational interaction do not, and that opens the door to a potential exploit. Something perfectly legal and by the book, a loophole, fully depending on the laws, if not necesarily honoring their spirit.

A linear trade of MoI to V can yield an exponential change in KE. It's right there in the T's & C's, been there since day 1. There's nothing comparable in the GPE section.

Immutable laws state that momentum is conserved, that velocity is a variable function of MoI, and that energy is the half-square of MoI times velocity. If MoI halves, energy doubles. That's the ready-made deal, on the table. Deal of the century. A direct challenge. An open goal. A golden invite. A blank cheque. Almost a brown envelope.

A zero-day..
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3134
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

It doesn't make any difference which way the rope was drawn around the axle. The wheel could lift the box in either direction. In the drawing, it has just been lifted. The stampers are lifted. If the rope was drawn the other way, you could say the same thing. You keep thinking the box / stamper relationship in the drawing might be a clue to the solution, and I've just shown you it's not. the box and the stampers couldn't be lifted together except in one direction , the stamper direction. The drawing shows the box has been lifted in the wrong direction, we all know that. But how do you know that Bessler wasn't just trying to show the box could be lifted in either direction?
johannesbender
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2239
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:29 pm
Location: not important

re: Flippin' Flywheels

Post by johannesbender »

There are other possibilities like , it could have been drawn behind the axle to show the lifting method on the axle , if it were drawn in front of the axle it would not be clear as to how it worked .

Then there is also the possibility that the stampers were one single assembled , portable unit with a heavy base to keep it in place and have the ability to be moved towards either sides of the axle depending on the direction the experiment needed to be done in , just my thoughts , this would make sense because logic dictates that no matter in which direction the bricks were wound upwards ,that the stampers would not allow the axle to rotate in the other direction when lowering /unwinding the bricks unless the cams were round beneath and hooked above..
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

eccentrically1 wrote:It doesn't make any difference which way the rope was drawn around the axle. The wheel could lift the box in either direction. In the drawing, it has just been lifted. The stampers are lifted. If the rope was drawn the other way, you could say the same thing. You keep thinking the box / stamper relationship in the drawing might be a clue to the solution, and I've just shown you it's not. the box and the stampers couldn't be lifted together except in one direction , the stamper direction. The drawing shows the box has been lifted in the wrong direction, we all know that. But how do you know that Bessler wasn't just trying to show the box could be lifted in either direction?
Why would he break the mechanical logic just to illustrate such a trivial point? Sure, a rope can wind onto a spool in either direction of rotation, but that lesson hardly warrants a picture, yet here modifies the mechanism to present us with distinct output and an input ends.. instead of just two outputs, as it's 'supposed' to show.

Sure, it could've been a simple mistake, an oversight, unthinkingly reproduced repeatedly, in slightly different ways, in all three engravings.

That's an alternative explanation. That it was just a series of accidents. But, if they're not accidents, then they're deliberate.

And if they're deliberate, then this means something.

I may be completely wrong about what is meant. I'm just looking for the most consistent explanation.. and what it might mean.

It occurred to me earlier that it might be worth a quick run through MT to see if there's any similar mechanisms depicted there.

Rememeber the hint Bessler makes about "additional structures" WRT making MT 48 viable? He actually makes this same allusion previously, in MT 44, and then by extension to MT 45, which is just a slight inversion of MT 44.

And then, while in this 'warm' zone of potentially-viable-but-missing-something mechanisms, Bessler shows us MT 46:

Image

So again, here we have a mechanism with two distinct sets of angular to linear interactions - the bucket and the balls. But follow it around mechanically, and it perfectly aligns with the given explanation - it's drawn 'correctly'. The balls ride the vaned vertical wheel downwards, ride the screw upwards, and the bucket is wound upwards.

So, maybe MT 46 is showing us the fundamental elements of his "additional structures", if not yet in the most interesting sequence. He could've drawn it 'wrong', but didn't.

These anomalies in the Mersburg and Kassel engravings could mean nothing, but they involve these same elements - angular to linear work conversions, and he's clearly indicated in MT 48 that his "additional structures" accomplish an angular to linear energy asymmetry.

This could all be a complete waste of time, but there seems to be a tenuous vein of consistency here..
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

The 'extra detail' indicated by these anomalies, but missing from MT 46 above, is the gravity reversal implied by the upwards-falling stampers.

So, what does Bessler then show us in the next image, MT 47? No prizes for guessing:

Image

..again we have multiple angular to linear work conversions, but also the inclusion of a fairly unambiguous upturned '47'...

Immediately following this, in MT 48, he makes the allusion to an angular / linear work asymmetry...

Now i'm no sleuth, but this looks like a trail of breadcrumbs..

The common elements seem to be a flywheel to integrate a series of small inputs and outputs (the balls, stampers, water pulses etc.), some kind of angular to linear feedback, and force inversion due to net rotation.

Obviously, from a purely theoretical perspective, a passive force inversion is a potential meal ticket... it's all the basis we need for an energy asymmetry and OU...

I'm keeping the interpretation to a minimum for now, just describing the bare facts.. Any decent psychosis seems perfectly consistent and self-reinforcing, and i have no idea how to pull the bunny from the hat, or even if there is hat. I'm constantly wrong about just about everything, and more than likely well on form here.

But for now it seems like a possible route out of the doldrums..
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

The consistent implication seems to be that there's a linear-to-angular mechansim that can be rotated somewhat freely, adding linear GPE by rotating upside down without having to input the corresponding angular GPE - as if it's balanced when lifted by rotation, or something.

That's probably too simplistic, dunno, but there's something here, i'm sure of it..
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Re: re: Flippin' Flywheels

Post by MrVibrating »

johannesbender wrote:There are other possibilities like , it could have been drawn behind the axle to show the lifting method on the axle , if it were drawn in front of the axle it would not be clear as to how it worked .

Then there is also the possibility that the stampers were one single assembled , portable unit with a heavy base to keep it in place and have the ability to be moved towards either sides of the axle depending on the direction the experiment needed to be done in , just my thoughts , this would make sense because logic dictates that no matter in which direction the bricks were wound upwards ,that the stampers would not allow the axle to rotate in the other direction when lowering /unwinding the bricks unless the cams were round beneath and hooked above..
All possible, no doubt. If it was just the one detail, anyway. Like Art says tho, it's the combined weight of many such anomalies, and their thematic consistencies, together with Bessler's own confirmations that he has indeed hidden a solution in his published images.

As such, looking too far for alternative explanations could be letting skepticism give way to cynicism - if Bessler did have a solution, and did hide it in plain sight, then here's a small thread of apparent consistnecy in an otherwise bewildering wilderness of mystery.. we have to be ready to snatch at any bones thrown our way.
Post Reply