What MT 138 Really IS!

[silent]

.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi TheVisitorV,
you feel a positive feedback loop.

I try to explain: A positive feedback loop can not only happen mechanically
It is also an event like the voice of an other person, maybe a key word.

You hear it and shout back, the other hear it and shout back more intensive.
this will go as long the people will fight against. the system will break.

The first signal finding a respond, will cause this problem.
without a second system, as I described it, that will not work.

example: if you cry and no one does hear it you have no swingback, resonance effect.

exactly this what I have described must be done mechanically.
So with one cross bar, without a second actor it will not work.

Therefore the sentence, weights work in pairs, one is arranging the other.

[WaltzCee]

We've been programmed since a small age
to react to certain words in certain ways, and while i surpassed
this nonsensical issues, i see most people still stuck in a
behavior instilled into them unconsciously, never asking themselves,
why do i react this way or the other when i hear this word and not
the other...

I feel you, bro. For instance when I read:

What MT 138 Really IS!

I was instilled at a very early age to expect an explanation.
Silly me. Or when I read:

Ohhhh, we are almost there, almost!!!!!!!!!!

and

cant contain my joy.....OMG OMG OMMMMMMMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG


YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

and

I DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

OOOOOMMMMMMGGGGGG

I DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I CAN"T FUCKING BELIEVE IT!!!!!!

BUT I FUCKING DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mistakenly thought you managed an answer. Again, silly me.
Now I'm beginning to think you're typing with one hand, with
your other hand some-wheres south of the keyboard.

or maybe you're simulating this?

[silent]

.

[Fletcher]

Then let me help you quickly cull the field silent.

Any construct for a proposed PM wheel that contains parts (be that levers, scissors, weights, balls, pulleys, ropes etc) imagined to move continuously by 'g' force or Fc's etc, that has no external or internal energy source lifting against gravity (other than perhaps ambient diurnal forces) must replenish the system GPE each sector of movement, and each cycle of rotation. This means the system CoM will be restored to its highest position at least once per full wheel rotation and simultaneously overcome normal system frictional losses to achieve that full restoration.

So eking out a small gain in angular momentum (as a result of imagined asymmetric torque) by some clever mechanical design that just overcomes the system frictional losses and restores GPE, whilst perhaps being a good learning process, is not anywhere near the main game in town IMO.

Just remember one thing ! Bessler's one-way wheels self started from any position i.e. they had positive torque in ALL positions. How many designs that we see (and I've built my share) don't even have any asymmetric torque, let alone ALWAYS have Positive torque like Bessler's ?

That is what we should be aiming for in our engineering and design attempts. Anything else is what everyone else has done at some time in the last thousand years, and failed. IMO !

[silent]

.

[eccentrically1]

Just remember one thing ! Bessler's one-way wheels self started from any position i.e. they had positive torque in ALL positions.

Is there any statement from any eyewitness that says this?
Is it possible the one way wheels only started from a certain position?
Why wouldn’t that be a good starting point for a design?
Why would a design with more than a single position start be better than one with a single position start?

[ovyyus]

Is there any statement from any eyewitness that says this?

No. However, Bessler said he made his later two-direction wheel in response to accusations that his one-direction wheels were wound up with a hidden clock spring ie: his one-direction wheels exhibited a constant torque in any position.

[Furcurequs]

Clock escapements allow for a measured/limited periodic input of energy from a wound clock spring or from a hanging/descending weight into the rest of the clock mechanism. The energy transfered per pulse may be enough to keep a swinging/oscillating pendulum and clock movement moving but, if you are familiar with old pendulum clocks, may not be able to start their movement.

In other words, I don't believe an accusation that the wheels were powered by springs is in itself enough to tell us that the wheels exhibited a constant (or near constant) torque in any position.

Also, even if there were such a direct claim, based upon my own understanding of many other types of motors I would find it highly dubious. To be honest, though, when it comes to my own ideas and experiments I try not to let any of the so-called "Bessler clues" limit my thinking anyway.

[ovyyus]

In other words, I don't believe an accusation that the wheels were powered by springs is in itself enough to tell us that the wheels exhibited a constant (or near constant) torque in any position.

Wagner's attempt at emulating Bessler's wheel was a clockwork spring powered weight hanging from the axle.

[Furcurequs]

Okay, if the argument has become that Wagner believed this, his own particular spring powered design, could emulate the behavior he saw in Bessler's wheels and this design consists of a wound spring driving a gear mechanism without an escapement, I could accept the notion that Bessler's wheels could start from any position with approximately the same torque.

...but it would also make me less likely to believe that Bessler had what he claimed. :(

...lol

[TheVisitorV]

Lol, WOW
People are mad at me, great....anyway...

Seems today i will have some extra time on my hands, hopefully i will be able to show those interested what i've discovered. I think i also found the "toy" Bessler was referencing the word that would give all away. it must have been a novelty, as i cannot find the exact date of the invention, some put it as early as the last century others date it back to bessler time.

Now there are 2 ways i can proceed, let you all know now or find a way to build the proper escapement as it is quite necessary, no it's not a pendulum but to work properly it needs an escapement.


anyway, i'll start working a bit later and see how i go about it. I think this is the most significant stuff i discovered so far by far.

[TheVisitorV]

This is something quick i've done, an experiment about jacobs ladder.
Some ideas i had last night and wanted to put them to the test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBxeL6TvqNY

[TheVisitorV]

btw, this is not what i was talking about earlier, just something that i wanted to share. Just wanted to specify that.

I'll go back to bed , have a bit more sleep then i'll come back and try to explain what i wanted to show you.

[eccentrically1]

Just remember one thing ! Bessler's one-way wheels self started from any position i.e. they had positive torque in ALL positions.

Is there any statement from any eyewitness that says this?

No. However, Bessler said he made his later two-direction wheel in response to accusations that his one-direction wheels were wound up with a hidden clock spring ie: his one-direction wheels exhibited a constant torque in any position.

Yes, but how would his later two-way wheels prove that the one-way wheels started from any position? I think there is a possibility they only started from a single position.

He didn't say he made the two -way wheels in response to accusations that the one-way wheels started in any position. If they weren't driven by a wound up clock spring, as he alleged, then isn't it more likely that they didn't start from any position?

They had to be tied off, I know. But they could have been tied off at the right place in rotation, and no one wondered about it.