I've had some requests asking for more clues and it's not easy to point to the clues without giving too much away too soon! I say this because I still would like to try and make my own prototype first. However I think that unless you know the principle which drives the wheel, the clues may not be any use anyway.
Obviously the most useful clue would be one which would lead to an understanding of this principle, but again, I really don't want to share that yet. On the other hand there may be people out there who do know the principle but have not yet worked out how to incorporate it within the wheel, so they might indeed find my clues useful.
It has always been clear to me that if Bessler wished to preserve and subsequently reveal his design for the benefit of post-humous recognition, or to prove he thought of the solution first, it would have to be contained within some drawings, as well as in text. It seems to me to be almost impossible to describe the function of a machine in text alone. Sure, you can give some good clues but a picture is worth a thousand words. So the drawings hold the best clues, but which are they? In my opinion he would have set down those clues as soon as possible, which means the drawings in Grundlicher Bericht, Das Triumphirende and Apologia Poetica contain the original graphic clues. I agree there are clues in Maschinen Tractate but they are not as useful as some others, apart from the 'toys' page.
As far as I know, the drawing at the end of the Apologia Poetica is only of use in telling us that there are five mechanisms in the ideal machine - and the same can be said for the MT 137, but I may be wrong about that - or my interpretation of what the fives mean may be wrong or inadequate. I should also remind everyone that it might simply point to chapter 55 of his Apologia Poetica which obviously contains a wealth of undeciphered hidden text.
For me the portraits only hold information which points to a pentagram. As before, I assume this refers to the number five again. I'm not convinced that Bessler would or could have included any clues which would show how his machine worked, within the portraits, however I am well aware that at least one other person has found what they regard as useful information there, so I must await the revelation of that information before I can arrive at an informed opinion.
I think it was John Worton who commented that Bessler hid in plain sight the secret of his machine in his woodcut images available for all to see for three hundred years. What better place to hide such information than within a drawing which is open to public scrutiny and has been for 300 years?
And finally I must echo Doug's words, 'some of us have been looking at simulations way too much..'
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
To me a RELEVANT clue is one that allows me to MAKE a mechanism that will maintain the OB of its weights' CoM during drum rotation. Anything OTHER than that and I consider the clue irrelevant. I'm quite sure that there are MANY clues sprinkled throughout the Bessler literature which can give one insights into Bessler's various and sundry esoterical, numerological, and religious beliefs. They may be of interest to those who are studying the psyche of the man, but are, IMO, of ZERO value to the reverse engineering Bessler mobilist seeking to duplicate his wheels.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "For me the portraits only hold information which points to a pentagram."
True, the two portraits DO contain pentagrams (I've found three of them so far!), but they are only a VERY SMALL part of the total amount of information contained in the protraits and, IMO, a relatively UNimportant part at that! They are meant to indicate that a SPECIAL relationship exists between just 5 of the weighted levers in an 8 weighted lever wheel during ANY 45 degree increment of CW drum rotation. That relationship involves the 5 weighted levers that approach the 9:00, 10:30, 12:00, 1:30, and 3:00 positions of a CW rotating drum during EACH 45 degree increment of drum rotation.
John, I think you have made the GRAND mistake of taking those pentagrams TOO literally and trying to actually make a 5 "perpetual motion structure" wheel out of them that will incorporate the various angles found within a pentagram.
Well, I could be wrong about this, but I do not think I am. There's always the possibility that the design you came up with WILL work, but I predict that you will have a very difficult time convincing me that your design is THE one Bessler used. But, then again, I might change my mind about this IF the clue interpretations you have found and use to "justify" your design are OVERWHELMINGLY impressive!
Still, a success, ANY success, is something to celebrate! I'm still hoping we will see what you have to present BEFORE Christmas of THIS year!
JC, I am a bit surprised about "looking at simulations way too much". Of course the ultimate goal is to build a physical working wheel. But on the way there, I would place greater trust in a simulation that works (using real world usefull parameters) than a revelation of any sorts (clues, dreams, etc.). Unless, of course, you think that Besslers wheel was doing something that conventional physics does not accurately describe. Some of my friends think that the wheel went into resonance with the ether and tapped a new energy source. Also, when using clues, I think it would be very important to know at what date in his life Bessler gave us those clues. Because they would refer to the wheel which he was currently using. There may have been significant variations in his mechanisms.
ReplyDeleteAnybody who thinks Bessler's wheels "went into resonance with the ether" might as well be saying that they were moved by angels, demons, or ghosts! IF they worked (and I certainly believe that they did!), then they were STRICTLY following the laws of mechanics and doing so with a simple, yet rather novel design.
DeleteIn both of the DT portraits Bessler focuses on the "connectedness" of the 5 active weighted levers that took place during each 45 degree increment of drum rotation. Although we learn in the 1st portrait that a TWO-directional wheel contains 32 springs (indicated by the parted wig with 32 curls and other clues), the focus is really on what was happening in a ONE-directional wheel since one can always construct a TWO-directional wheel from two parallel, coaxial ONE-directional wheels or, as I refer to them, "sub wheels".
In the second portrait, the focus is again upon the interconnectedness of the 5 active weighted levers in a one-directional wheel, but now we have greater detail as to the shape of the "magic" levers he used and how they were interconnected with cords. This, of course, is to be expected in an engraving in which he appears in the setting of a carpentry workshop.
The logical place for anyone to begin extracting the "Treasure Trove" of mathematical clues hidden in the two portraits is with the 1st portrait. To do this effectively, one needs to obtain the highest resolution images of the two portraits possible and then begin studying them with a drawing program which allows one to draw straight lines through various "locator" points in the illustrations. Measure ALL angles made by any two intersecting lines and also the various ratios that REPEATEDLY emerge from the two portraits. These ratios are VERY important and one can not reconstruct the shape of the "magic" levers without them. And, of course, one should be building / computer modeling and simulating (preferably the latter!) CONTINUOUSLY as he or she studies the portrait clues.
YES! THE solution to the Bessler wheel mystery REALLY is in those two portraits. Anybody who just casually dismisses them as irrelevant or too hard to decipher will have next to a ZERO percent chance of ever rediscovering the WORKING OB PM gravity wheel design that Bessler found.
Well,I am not guilty,simply because I can't and also because I believe that hands on is the only way to go.
ReplyDeleteSimulation is fine if you have all the facts but if you have on tiny unknown quatity,especially if you don't know what that factor is,you are lost.
Ah well, I'm old school Mimi, and I have always found the hands-on approach works best for me, but I understand the attraction of simulating a design.
ReplyDeleteNo I don't think that the wheel was doing something that conventional physics doesn't accurately describe, it had, and has, to perform within the current understanding of physics. However I believe I know how it works and why and it conforms perfectly to accepted physical laws, but there is a way of achieving rotation with gravity alone and within those laws.
I agree that his wheel may have used more than one design and in my opinion his clues were worked out right at the beginning of his success and therefore they applied to his one-way wheels.
JC
We agree Trevor and for me the understanding of the various potential designs is multiplied enormously when you build a model.
ReplyDeleteJC
The Bellows Clue
ReplyDeleteAs a Clue, on his woodcut image MT56, Bessler has written the word ‘Bellows’.
As a visual Clue, he has also incorporated ‘a Bellows Element’, often in pairs, into several of his woodcut designs; his ‘demonstrations regarding the possibility’ images.
The Bellows images are: MT24? MT25? MT56, MT57, MT58, MT59, MT60, MT61, MT80, MT81, MT100, MT105, MT112? MT114, MT125, MT128? MT129 & MT133
Therefore, The Bellows idea/construction (either as a shape or movement/action or both) is a recognisable part of The Working Mechanism.
JW
The Bucket Conveyor Clue
ReplyDeleteIn MT48, Bessler introduces his Bucket Conveyor Clue.
Bucket conveyors also appear in MT49, MT50, MT110, MT111 and MT112.
It is a surprise to read that Bessler says in his notes accompanying MT48 “The principle is good” as anyone who has spent time chasing ball-bearings around will know!
He then says “the figure as it is will not give birth to any motion until completely different structures bless this marriage”
Therefore, there IS ‘In This Figure’ something that is right; a recognisable element or movement (or both?) of The Mechanism that we are looking for.
Bessler makes our position clear in his MT Cover Note “no illustration by itself contains a description of the motion; however taking various illustrations together and combining them, (it will be possible) to find one in them”
I propose that there is something about the construction, appearance or functioning of a part of The Mechanism that resembles a bucket conveyor. I appreciate that this still leaves us with a fair amount to consider, however at least we know from Bessler’s statements which part of the haystack we are to go looking in. When you list all the possibilities, as I did, you see that this part of the haystack really isn’t very big or complicated.
A bucket conveyor is composed of several elements, one of he most important being of course, the bucket!
JW
The Caricature Figures Clue
ReplyDeleteIn visual clue terms, it is surely significant that only three of Bessler’s images in MT have caricature figures in them; MT85, MT86 and MT138.
These figures ‘animate’ these images, they ‘give them life’, in a very straightforward way, no need to look for any deep meanings or difficult symbolism here.
So, why did he do this with just these three images and not the other 137?
I suggest that these images have been given special treatment by Bessler, because they ARE special. They show us the principle elements of The Mechanism, the ones that ‘give it life’; that ‘make it move’.
It is interesting to note that MT85 and MT86 ‘face each other’ they are very similar in content and may be ‘read’ as a pair, a diptych; ‘a mini story in two frames’.
It is also interesting to note that the figures in MT138 at C have arms (extended), but the figures at D do not.
JW
Thank you for reminding me John. MT 85 and 86 lend support to my argument that parametric oscillation, or active swinging, is the key to Bessler's wheel.
DeleteJC
@JC
DeleteYes John,
I know that "MT 85 and 86 lend support to (the) argument that parametric oscillation, or active swinging, is the key to Bessler's wheel". That is why I said it was interesting to note their 'arrangement'.
You are not alone in this view, both myself and Andre completely agree with you.
JW
@ JW
ReplyDeleteWell, I, of course, have to STRONGLY disagree with EVERYTHING you've proposed in your last three comments. Here's why:
Bessler's wheels did NOT incorporate ANY type of bellows inside their drums. Machines like those depicted in MT 56 are also known as "self-blowing windmills". MANY attempts have been made to make these work and ALL have failed. Bessler tells us that "THE MECHANISM" which he found and used was VERY efficient and wasted very little energy / mass during its operation. There are probably no other designs MORE wasteful of their use of energy / mass than the "self-blowing windmills" and Bessler certainly would not have been using them if he wanted his wheels to be "greedy" when it came to their extraction of the energy / mass content of their weights.
Your "Bucket Conveyor Clue" is also totally bogus. There were no chain drives or sprocket pulleys inside of Bessler's wheels and if there had been any attached to the section of axle inside of a drum, then skeptical patrons of his demonstrations would have noticed this when they "groped" their axles. IF Bessler had gone to the trouble of actually constructing MT 48 he would have quickly realized that it was unworkable. In order to work, one would have to have MORE of the sphere weights dropping VERTICALLY along the rim of the wheel per unit of time than were lifted vertically by the bucket chain during that same unit of time. IF that was to happen, one would quickly exhaust the supply of sphere weights on channel D and the mechanism would stop running. Designs like MT 48 are visually deceptive because one sees that there are more sphere weights on the rim of the wheel than on the ascending buckets and immediately jumps to the conclusion that "the principle is good". It most certainly is NOT and the thousands of failed attempts with designs like this confirm that FACT.
Yes, the "caricatures" used in MT 85 and MT 86 would certainly "give them life". Indeed, to have ANY hope of working one would HAVE to have a human being present "pumping" a swing to input enough energy / mass to, possibly, make the machines depicted operate! They certain were not PM! There really is nothing significant about Bessler's occasional insertion of a caricature into the MT illustrations other than their expected bodily motions helping to demonstrate the operation of a particular machine's component.
I, like most serious reverse engineering Bessler mobilists, LONG ago abandoned designs which were dependent upon hydraulic or pneumatic principles as a solution to the Bessler wheel mystery. I only consider a FEW of the first 20 or so illustrations in MT to have any possible relevance to the ACTUAL mechanism he used. Everything else, with the sole exception of MT 138, is just irrelevant "filler" as far as I am concerned. Again, I urge you and others to focus MAINLY on the two DT portraits. They WILL lead you to success.
@TG
DeleteWell, no surprises there then! I thought you would disagree with me.
I wonder if you read my clues a little too fast and didn’t quite take in what I was saying?
I did not say Bessler incorporated bellows into his mechanism. I said he incorporated something that looked like or acted like a bellows.
Likewise I did not say my clue-solutions and design were dependant upon hydraulic or pneumatic principles.
My Bucket Conveyor Clue is very far from bogus. Again I did not say that there were chain drives or sprocket pulleys in Bessler’s machine. I said that an element in his ‘wheel’ strongly resembles an element in a bucket conveyor and I suggested which element that might be.
I also made it clear that from my own experience of ball-bearing driven machines I know very well why MT48 would not work.
I note that you consider just a few of the first 20 images in MT plus MT138 to contain clues, but that in the other 120 images Bessler carved he only created “irrelevant filler” What an odd thing for him to do!
JW
I think you will discover one day that his poems (especially AP verse 55) and his woodcut images in MT will confirm Bessler’s foreknowledge and posthumous recognition.
DeleteThe images in MT, together with their accompanying notes and other ‘additions’ constitute a very large part of Bessler’s Factum; his documentation; his case-notes; his evidence, to be presented in court before the judge and jury (of whatever type or jurisdiction). Carving his wooden blocks, I think he spent a great deal of time and effort getting his presentation right.
Bearing in mind that Bessler’s work has been trapped in his poems and images for 300 years, you could call it his Factum Poetica!
JW
A solution that has no identifiable source of energy - human, animal, environmental, chemical; (not simply a measurement of resistance to acceleration of an object) - is bogus.
DeleteThe explanations for why a wheel can't be constructed to maintain overbalance by shifting the center of gravity of its innards to one side of the axle (under its own power) are irrevocable: binding, irreversible, final, unalterable, unchangeable, permanent, immutable, irretrievable, fixed, conclusive. You all know what they are, and why.
In the note next to mt13 "..or someone was available up by D to always lift up the weight with lightning speed.", bessler recognizes this. In other words, if I may be so bold, the innards can't be cajoled, levered, spring tensioned, cord connected, swung or parametrically oscillated to transfer their weight where it doesn't want to go - above and to one side of the axle - without someone, or maybe something in a genuine solution, to give them a boost at some point.
JW wrote: "I did not say Bessler incorporated bellows into his mechanism. I said he incorporated something that looked like or acted like a bellows."
DeleteYeah, right. I'm supposed to believe that the Gera wheel which only had an INTERIOR space about 2 inches thick had some sort of bellows crammed into it!? NO WAY!
You further wrote:
"He [Bessler] then says “the figure as it is will not give birth to any motion until completely different structures bless this marriage”
Therefore, there IS ‘In This Figure’ [MT 48] something that is right; a recognisable element or movement (or both?) of The Mechanism that we are looking for."
Bessler acknowledges that MT 48 is UNworkable and that COMPLETELY different structures are necessary to "bless the marriage". He is just saying that a wheel with weights near its rim that travel around the axle CAN be made to work, but NOT with ANYTHING resembling the structures in MT 48. He is, of course, referring to the WORKING OB PM gravity wheel design that he had found and used which is NOT in ANY way similar to what is depicted in MT 48!
You continue with: "I note that you consider just a few of the first 20 images in MT plus MT138 to contain clues, but that in the other 120 images Bessler carved he only created “irrelevant filler” What an odd thing for him to do!"
Not really such an "odd thing" when one considers that ALL of what we NOW see in MT was just a lead up to the last pages where the WORKING design he found was to be presented and was intended to show his readers what DID NOT work and HOW his design overcame their various failings. Quite unfortunately, the woodcuts for those last pages were destroyed after Bessler realized how really vulnerable he was to having his property seized by the authorities whenever anyone made a false accusation against him.
Doug wrote: "...if I may be so bold, the innards can't be cajoled, levered, spring tensioned, cord connected, swung or parametrically oscillated to transfer their weight where it doesn't want to go - above and to one side of the axle - without someone, or maybe something in a genuine solution, to give them a boost at some point."
I quite agree that something "extra" is needed to give the weighted levers within one of Bessler's wheels a "boost". But, because of VERY careful counterbalancing of a drum's weighted levers using cords and stretched springs, the percentage of energy / mass that had to be deducted from one of this OB PM gravity wheel's total output to provide that boost was MUCH less than the output itself. That left a lot over to either accelerate all of the structures of the wheel or perform some "outside" work. Ultimately, ALL of the energy / mass outputted by one of his wheels came from the vast quantities of it that resided within their lead weights. That energy / mass content was certainly NOT "bogus", but very real. If it was possible to release it suddenly, it would be enough to level a city!
"ALL of the energy / mass outputted by one of his wheels came from the vast quantities of it that resided within their lead weights. "
DeleteOnly in gravitational potential form.
There is only one way for this form of energy to be transformed, by virtue of position.
The positions of the innards can't be accelerated from inside by any combination of conservative forces. Your new design, now with even more springs, would seize up like a heart in cardiac arrest, if you ever attempted to build with real parts.
"Only in gravitational potential form."
DeleteCOMPLETELY wrong! There is energy / mass in an object APART from any that is added to it in order to increase its gravitational energy / mass while "immersed" in a planet's gravity field. The energy / mass released by an atomic weapon will be the same REGARDLESS of whether it is detonated on the surface of the Earth, at the top of Mount Everest, or on the Moon! The latent energy / mass content of the weights within Bessler's wheels was sufficient to keep them, continously serviced, rotating for BILLIONS of years!
The whole point of an OB PM gravity wheel is that the torques acting upon its axle are NOT "conservative". The driving torque will, in WORKING wheel, always be much greater than the COUNTER torques that tend to retard its motion.
If I'm wrong, the weights' mass in his wheels was available in another form, besides gravitational potential form, for energy.
DeleteWhat other form would that be? We know it wasn't nuclear, your personal favorite. It wasn't electrical, that hadn't been discovered yet. Chemical? No funny smells in the story; could have been dangerous with all that lead. Thermal energy? The weights weren't reported being warm to the touch. Electromagnetic? My hunch; the weights were decoys. Electrochemical? That was yet to be discovered. Sound? No, too inefficient.
So we're left with gravitational potential energy.
Yes, the torque must be positive, no argument there. But two (or even more) conservative forces, gravity and springs, do not generate positive torque, no matter what you say or simulate.
PART I:
DeleteThink of it this way.
The energy / mass content of an object can be transfered to other objects and then manifest itself in various forms once it is received by them. It may appear in the receiving object in forms that are either kinetic, potential, or some combination of these. When the transferred energy / mass is displayed mostly in a kinetic form by a receiving object or its parts, they may be accelerated, heat up, produce sounds, or generate shock waves. The tranferred energy / mass can also be displayed in a potential form by the receiving object or its parts as when they are flexed against some internal or external restoring force or when they are raised in an electric, gravitational, or magnetic field. Ultimately, however, REGARDLESS of what form, whether kinetic or potential, the energy / mass transferred to an object or its parts takes, it is STILL just energy / mass.
You seem to believe that a lead weight can ONLY have gravitational potential energy / mass and, consequently, that ANY change in the energy / mass content of the weight will ONLY take place as it is raised or lowered in a planet's gravity field. This is NOT true. An object CAN lose OR gain energy / mass content even if it does not move and if no planetary gravity field is present!
It is important to realize that any PHYSICAL object will contain SOME INNATE amount of energy / mass that is possessed by totality of the subatomic particles contained in its various atoms. The more massive the object, the more of this innate energy / mass it will contain. This innate energy / mass content is completely INDEPENDENT of gravity fields or any other fields for that matter.
As the weights each completed one of their orbits around the axle inside of Bessler's OB PM wheels, they would return to their exact starting locations in the Earth's gravity field and, therefore, would have experienced NO change in their gravitational potential energy / mass. That much is obvious and I do not disagree with the "experts" about this point. However, there is a SECONDARY process going on inside of a genuine OB PM wheel that the experts are completely "blind" to though they would not be if they were more familiar with the revelations of 20th century physics. This process involves tapping the FAR greater reserve of INNATE energy / mass in the weights.
PART II:
DeleteIn a constantly rotating wheel that MAINTAINS the location of its weights' CoM on the wheel's descending side, the descending side weights will ALWAYS be dropping vertically FASTER than the ascending side weights are rising vertically. Thus, AT ANY INSTANT, gravitational potential energy / mass is being TRANSFERRED to all of the structures of the wheel at a GREATER rate by the descending side weights than it is TRANSFERRED from all of the structures of the wheel to the ascending side weights. That means that, as wheel rotation continues, there is an EXCESS of gravitational potential energy / mass that is extracted from the descending side weights and which ACCUMULATES in all of the structures of the wheel. This accumulated energy / mass then takes a kinetic form and is displayed by all of the structures of the wheel as they are accelerated. If the wheel's axle is attached to some outside piece of machinery, then its parts will receive some of the accumulating energy / mass in the OB PM wheel's axle and that received energy / mass will then be displayed by the parts of the outside machinery in either kinetic or potential form or some combination of these.
So, with every COMPLETE rotation of ANY OB PM wheel's weight around the axle, THAT weight experiences NO change in its gravitational potential energy / mass as long as it returns to its exact starting point. Yet, during its round trip it gave up MORE gravitational potential energy / mass than it took back! From whence did the weight get that EXTRA energy / mass that it was obliged to give up? It was not provided by the Earth's gravity field or any other conventional source of power either inside or outside of the wheel.
It could only have come from the abundant supply of INNATE energy / mass that ALREADY existed inside of the weight and was there residing in the very subatomic particles of its lead atoms before they were even mined and then melted down to form the weights! Actually, it had been waiting in those atoms, patiently, since the beginning of the universe to be tapped and that is exactly what Bessler did with his wheels.
DeleteIn Part 2 you say
"Yet, during its round trip it gave up MORE gravitational potential energy / mass than it took back!"
This implies gravity is not a conservative force. The energy came from the "innate supply" in the weight, transformed how, again?
In your Part 1 you said,
" As the weights each completed one of their orbits around the axle inside of Bessler's OB PM wheels, they would return to their exact starting locations in the Earth's gravity field and, therefore, would have experienced NO change in their gravitational potential energy / mass."
Implying gravity is a conservative force.
In your last paragraph you say the subatomic particles' innate energy (somehow) release kinetic energy in some form. Yet, you say this form must be gravitational potential because the descending weights are accelerating faster than the ascending weights.
" the descending side weights will ALWAYS be dropping vertically FASTER than the ascending side weights are rising vertically. Thus, AT ANY INSTANT, gravitational potential energy / mass is being TRANSFERRED to all of the structures of the wheel at a GREATER rate by the descending side weights than it is TRANSFERRED from all of the structures of the wheel to the ascending side weights."
So you want the design of the wheel (a classic OB design, weights further from the axle on one side, closer to the axle on the other side) to conform to physics laws on one hand (no change in gravitational potential) and break the laws on the other ("gave up more gravitational potential than it took back",).
And this duality of gravitational potential is accomplished by weights dropping faster than they rise, because of their respective distances from the axle, and also because of the "innate energy", that is transferred between the wheel and its weights (in gravitational potential form!), faster on one side and slower on the other.
Your innate energy (whatever that means) in the weights can't somehow transform more gravitational potential going down than going back up because of the time differential, and transfer it to the wheel, or outside the wheel, to comply with the conservative requirement for gravitational potential. Despite the "secondary process" (ahem) going on inside a genuine OB PM wheel, your whole argument still rests (sorry) on the same tired old song: that it's possible to maintain the center of gravity to one side of an axle with dropping and rising weights.
"Yet, during its round trip it gave up MORE gravitational potential energy / mass than it took back!"
DeleteTo which you wrote: "This implies gravity is not a conservative force. The energy came from the "innate supply" in the weight, transformed how, again?"
No gravity is still a conservative force. I could have, perhaps, phrased things differently. Based on just the vertical distances moved, the descending side weights ultimately must lose the SAME amount of energy / mass as is regained by the ascending side weights. However, momentarily, the descending side weights lose their gravitational potential energy / mass at a faster rate than it is regained by the ascending side weights. This is because the OB design causes the descending side weights to momentarily increase their vertical drop rate. This requires that the descending side weights speed up a bit and that requires that they be supplied with EXTRA energy / mass that will appear in a kinetic form. That extra energy / mass comes DIRECTLY from the energy / mass content of the weights themselves or what I called their "innate" energy / mass.
Ordinarily, the extra energy / mass supplied to the descending side weights would cause them to INDIVIDUALLY CONTINUOUSLY accelerate, but that does not happen to the descending side weights because they are attached to the wheel and the other weighted levers. Instead, that extra energy / mass they "borrowed" from their own innate energy / mass content winds up being accumulated and evenly distributed amongst ALL of the structures of the wheel because it is not extracted from these by the ascending side weights fast enough to increase their gravitational potential energy / mass because they have no need to increase it that rapidly.
HOW is a weight's innate energy / mass extracted to increase the kinetic energy / mass of that weight? I don't know the specifics, but it DOES happen just as the expansion of a spring causes the energy / mass content of EVERY subatomic particle in its atoms to SIMULTANEOUSLY decrease a bit. Despite modern quantum theory, there is still MUCH going on within matter that we do not have all of the answers to (such as for example "quantum entanglement" effect).
You also wrote: "...your whole argument still rests (sorry) on the same tired old song: that it's possible to maintain the center of gravity to one side of an axle with dropping and rising weights."
Without the continuous maintenance of the OB of an array of rotating weights, it is NOT possible to construct a wheel that will continuously extract the innate energy / mass of its weights and make it available for "outside" work. In addition, one must find a design that will maintain this OB WITHOUT needing to use ALL of the extracted innate energy / mass that the wheel's OB state makes available.
Obviously, I am quite convinced that Bessler found such a design and that it was critically dependent upon the careful use of spring tension to maintain the OB of the CoM of its weights. While it is a "simple" design, it is also a VERY precise one and this is what has, so far, prevented it from being replicated.
Maybe Bessler's bucket conveyor comment hints that the shifting of weights is missing from the 'marriage' as he puts it.?(parametric oscillation shooting/twanging/swinging them across?).
ReplyDeleteAnd also there is some 'crossover' with the bellows design and the 'lazy tongs/scissors' in the toys page, they both look like one of the two types of letter 'A' he uses (the one with the cranked not straight cross stroke).
regards
Jon
Yes Jon,
DeleteThat is a very good comment.
There most certainly is 'some crossover' between the things you mention, and there is yet 'more crossover' with some other things you don't mention.
JW
or Factum Eternia ...
ReplyDeleteA solution that has no identifiable source of energy - human, animal, environmental, chemical; (not simply a measurement of resistance to acceleration of an object) - is bogus.
ReplyDeleteThe explanations for why a wheel can't be constructed to maintain overbalance by shifting the center of gravity of its innards to one side of the axle (under its own power) are irrevocable: binding, irreversible, final, unalterable, unchangeable, permanent, immutable, irretrievable, fixed, conclusive. You all know what they are, and why.
In the note next to mt13 "..or someone was available up by D to always lift up the weight with lightning speed.", bessler recognizes this. In other words, if I may be so bold, the innards can't be cajoled, levered, spring tensioned, cord connected, swung or parametrically oscillated to transfer their weight where it doesn't want to go - above and to one side of the axle - without someone, or maybe something in a genuine solution, to give them a boost at some point.
The source of energy is gravity.
DeleteThe overbalance or extra weight is achieved by a simple system of weighted and non-weighted levers, the articulations of which, in their actions of both falling/rising and moving sideways, create a permanently one-sided structure. This structure should, if you get your design right, run even without its weights in their chambers.
I am not even attempting the problem you describe.
JW
You are attempting exactly what I described.
DeleteCreate a permanently one sided structure through overbalance of weight is what I described.
And gravity is not a source of energy for the hundredth time.
You can store energy in higher position from a reference point in a gravitational field.
If you let that store of energy move to a lower position, or "fall" you can re-use it, but only in equal amount, there is no gain, only wasted energy to friction. Moving sideways makes no difference; you're in the same position.
In that case, I was led a little astray by your use of the words “ the centre of gravity of its innards”. In my conception of the device the “innards” do a different thing to the “out-ards”; it is two mechanisms in one, each causing the other to overbalance its otherwise static position.
DeleteJW
You might be still a little astray.
DeleteThe "innards" would be everything inside. Not innard and outtard as in relation to the axle.
Mechanisms that rely on falling and rising weight are basically seesaws. They aren't going to seesaw unless there is someone to push them. They'll oscillate from an initial push, then come to rest at their lowest gravitational potential position.
But, imagine a seesaw whose fulcrum is closer to one end than to the other and whose farther end is initially held up by a cord. Now imagine that the cord breaks and the seesaw's longer, more massive end begins to rapidly rotate around the fulcrum. This end will eventually strike the ground with great force and the impact will transfer energy / mass from the seesaw to the impact point which then makes its temperature rise a fraction of a degree. At this point the energy / mass transfer stops as does the motion of the seesaw.
DeleteNow let us imagine that we have a "magic" seesaw given to us by a sorcerer. It is magic because, just as soon as its longer and more massive end strikes the ground, it mysteriously disappears and then reappears again with the original orientation it had when its longer end was being held up by the cord. This cord again breaks and the magic seesaw's longer end crashes to the ground and heats it a bit just like the ordinary seesaw's longer end did. But, then the magic seesaw suddenly rematerializes with its ORIGINAL orientation again and the process is repeated over and over, ad infinitum! Slowly, over the passage of millenia, the energy / mass content of the seesaw is gradually transferred to the ground to heat it and that heat is always dissipated as it heats surrounding air molecules that carry it away.
This, in essence, is how an OB gravity wheel must work. Only it must do so WITHOUT relying upon a "magic" seesaw. It must achieve the SAME effect, but do so WITHOUT violating ANY of the known laws of physics. Impossible? Bessler FOUND a way to do it! So shall we!
Um, okay.
DeleteOkay then, I'm going for the "magic" see-saw plus something else option. Will keep you posted.
DeleteJW
I love your consistency Doug, and I look forward to the day when I show you that, not only are you right, but so am I.
ReplyDeleteJC
Oh yeah!
DeleteI'd look forward to it too, if such a day were in our future.
DeleteBut good luck anyway, and I'll look forward to the day you realize I'm right and you're not.
Well, this morning's computer modeling session produced some VERY interesting results and conclusions. Let me briefly summarize them:
ReplyDeletea.) I have been assuming all along that ALL of the springs within Bessler's wheels were identical, particularly with regard to their spring constants or k values. This now appears to have been a FALSE assumption. Apparently, he used TWO different TYPES of springs with quite different spring constants. Let me just refer to the one's I originally thought he used as his "low k springs" and the new ones I discovered that he used with a much higher spring constant as his "high k springs".
b.) As I continue to struggle with obtaining ALL of the details of Bessler's "Secret Principle", I am finding clues that seem to clearly indicate that, while each weighted lever had the two TYPES of springs attached to it, it was necessary for Bessler to use TWO of the "high k springs" in parallel with each other on EACH lever. This halved their higher k values to allow for two smaller springs to be used and also applied their tension to the weighted levers in a more evenly way.
This means that each weighted lever was equipped with THREE separate springs, his 8 weighted lever one-directional wheels would therefore have required 24 springs (8 low k and 16 high k) and his 16 weighted lever two-directional wheels would have required a total of 48 springs (16 low k and 32 high k)!
c.) I also think that I can now confidently state that each of the weighted levers AND the volume of space within a one-directional wheel or two-directional wheel's one-directional "sub wheel" was evenly divided into 5 parallel layers of equal thickness (there's THAT blasted number again!). Furthermore, the central layer contained the low k springs and the two layers flanking it contained the high k springs. This configuration would have been necessary in order to balance the various stresses acting on the weighted levers as they were being shifted during each 45 degree interval of drum rotation.
d.) Now for something really surprising! From studying the most likely k values for these two types of springs, it seems to me that they are rather "standard" types of springs which could readily have been used in the types of weighing scales one might find being used at an ordinary vegetable market! In fact, I'm now starting to doubt if Bessler actually did make his own springs, but, rather, simply purchased them from the manufacturer of such scales! If so, then that would mean that he did not select the springs to match the weights he put on the ends of his levers, but, quite the reverse, he might have been FORCED to match the masses of the weights he used to the springs which were available to him!
In any event, I think I had a rather productive session this morning and feel that I am a bit closer to a FULL understanding of his "Secret Principle": the FINAL obstacle that still prevents me from completing my journey down HIS "right track" to success! At this point, I may be about 99.5% of the way there!
As to b):—
ReplyDeleteIf you connect two equal Hooke-law springs in parallel, the k of the combined pair is twice, not half that of a single spring. If you want to halve k for the combination, you have to connect them in series.
On re-reading your item b) maybe you mean that two springs each of constant k/2, connected in parallel, replace one spring of constant k.
DeleteIn that case, fair enough, but as a general comment, your design is getting more and more complicated!
PART I:
DeleteYes, Arktos, I mean that putting two springs "in parallel" allows a SINGLE spring of value k to be replaced by TWO springs of value k/2 which were smaller and probably more readily available to Bessler.
I don't have exact figures yet, but I'm starting to see preliminary test results that indicate that the Merseburg wheel's low k springs had a k equal to about 5 lb/in and its high k springs had a k equal to about 8 TIMES as great which would be about 40 lb/in! That second k value assumes only a SINGLE high k spring is attached to each lever. Using TWO high k springs per weighted lever drops their required k value to about 20 lb/in. Some recently discovered and interpreted DT portrait clues seem to indicate that Bessler did, indeed, use TWO of the high k springs per lever in the Merseburg wheel, so I'm going to pursue this approach for a while. These values are, of course, ONLY used for lever weights with a mass of 4 lbs. If weights of a higher mass are used, as was the case in the Weissenstein wheel, then springs with proportionately higher k values MUST be used.
One of my ultimate goals is to be able to provide the craftsmen out there in PM land with an ACCURATE, VALID CLUE BASED schematic that will allow them to construct a 4:1 model of ONE of the Merseburg wheel's one-directional "sub wheels". It will be a table top, 36 inch diameter model wheel which will have 8 levers each carrying a 1 ounce or 1/16th lb lead weight at its end. To adjust for the change in scale and mass of its less massive weights, it is necessary to divide the estimated k values for the full size Merseburg wheel above by 16. This gives the table top wheel's low k springs a k value of about 0.3125 lb/in each and its high k springs, when two are used on each lever, a k value of about 1.25 lb/in each.
I, too, was a bit "perturbed" when the DT portrait clues indicated to me that each weighted lever required 3 springs be attached to it. But, I've learned to go where the Master directs me to because, oddly enough, even all of the false or "decoy" clues he throws in front of me have had an instructive purpose! They initially are irritating and seem to be a waste of time, but then I find that in the process of proving them false, I become better able to later find the VALID clues that he used and interpret them correctly.
Anyway, here's my latest interpretation of exactly what Bessler would have seen when he peered into one of the inspection holes between two of the outer radial support members on the cloth covered side of the Merseburg wheel's drum.
He would have immediately been able to observe TWO sets of side by side, but opposed weighted levers each set of which contained one weighted lever from each of the drum's two one-directional "sub wheels". One of the sets would have been between the radial support members above the inspection hole and the other set would have been between the radial support members below the hole.
PART II:
DeleteThe two opposed weighted levers in each set would have had its lever's pivots held in small brass bearings that were inserted into the radial support members and there were 3 of these parallel radial support members for each of the sets of TWO opposed weighted levers. For EACH of the SETS of two opposed weighted levers that Bessler would see, there would have been a total of 6 springs attached to the two levers: 2 of the low k springs and 4 of the high k springs. However, they would not have been directly attached to the levers, but, rather, attached by short lengths of cord to them. Exactly where within the drum's interior these springs were directly "anchored" is another matter and one which I am still working on. All I can say at this time is that the attachment points of the two types of springs' cords to the levers and of the other ends of the springs to the drum's interior are CRITICAL to enabling Bessler's wheels' weights to maintain the OB of their CoM's during their drums' rotations. IF the spring attachment points are not correct and the springs do not have the correct k values, then one will not be able to achieve PM with the design. There is probably some "forgiveness" in the parameters, but I do not think it is much.
All of the cords attached to these sets of two opposed, weighted levers would have been neatly arranged into 5 separate "layers" so as to prevent them from rubbing and fraying during drum rotation and would have been easily accessible for replacement should a particular cord fail during wheel operation. Bessler would have been able to reach into a drum's interior and, while using only ONE hand, have quickly been able to replace ANY of the cords or springs in that octant of the drum that might have failed when the drum had been in rotation. Replacing a weight at the end of a lever, however, would have been a bit more involved since it would seem to require the use of two hands: one to pull the lever down and the other to remove the weight from the end of the lever.
The inspection holes he cut into one of the oiled cloth sides of the Merseburg wheel were probably circular in shape and about 18 inches in diameter and each was covered over by a pinned on flap of cloth a few inches larger in diameter. There would have been 8 of these inspection holes present and, of course, a much smaller hole nearer the axle so that the skeptical at public demonstrations could reach in and "grope" the 12 diameter wheel's axle to convince themselves that the drum was not being turned by dropping weights hanging by a cord wrapped around the unseen interior portion of the axle. I have often wondered how many extra thalers Bessler pulled in by wagering the "no track" skeptics in his audiences that they would only feel a solid wooden axle while they bet that they would feel something attached to the axle!
After a weight was removed from the end of a lever, it was necessary to GENTLY ease the lever back into position between its parallel radial drum members until it made contact with an additional stop located there (which was NOT the weight's rim stop). If the lever was released suddenly or slipped out of Bessler's hand, then it would have flew back violently against this extra stop because of the spring tension it experienced and have made a VERY loud and startling sound which is exactly what happened during the official examination of the Merseburg wheel after the wheel had been moved to a different set of vertical axle supports and Bessler was attempting to reinstall its drum's sixteen 4 lb weights back onto the ends of their levers.
Correction:
DeleteIn the second paragraph of PART II above, I wrote:
"All of the cords attached to these sets of two opposed, weighted levers would have been neatly arranged into 5 separate "layers"..."
I should have wrote that all of the cords attached to EACH one of the two opposed weighted levers within a set are arranged into only 5 "layers". Thus, for the TWO opposed, weighted levers within a set, there would have been a TOTAL of 10 layers present...five for EACH of the set's two weighted levers.
Sorry about that.
TG, A quotation I remember from pre-computer days in an engineering office:—
Delete"When the weight of the paper equals the weight of the airplane, only then can you go flying."
Meaning (I think) that after a huge amount of paperwork has been created, in the form of drawings and words, the project should succeed.
On that basis, with the amount you have written about your wheel, surely it should be turning by now!
Ah, yes, the "good ol'" pre-computer days when all you had was a handbook of physics laws and mathematical theorems, your trusty slide rule, and GALLONS of black coffee! LOL! Well, time marches on and what is being done today with super computer simulations is truly amazing. It possible to "build" an airplane and "fly" it all from a keyboard and, IF the project is ever funded, one can be about 99.9% certain that the real thing will behave exactly like the sim!
DeleteYes, I HAVE written much about Bessler's wheels mainly because I currently have the time to do so and in an effort to give others some HOPE that a REAL solution IS possible and is coming SOON. I live for the moment when I can have what I call my "House of Richters" experience; that is, when I can gaze upon essentially the SAME WORKING mechanism that Bessler found while fiddling around with his little table top model back in early 1712. What a "glorious" exaltation that will be!
Although I have restricted myself to only making 2D computer models in order to speed up my research, I am also constantly thinking about what the REAL Merseburg wheel would have looked like both externally and internally and what materials went into its construction. I'm sure that EVERY part of it was VERY carefully calculated out by Bessler in order to optimize the release and utilization of its weights' energy / mass content.
There's a reason why he proudly proclaimed that no "finer" wheel would ever be made (and he probably would have been truly astonished if he could have known that Asa Jackson would do that also with a completely DIFFERENT design!). I've even found NUMERICAL values encrypted into the portraits that give certain measurements to an accuracy of THREE decimal places! Those were not determined by simply making ruler or tape measurements off of a physical model, but, rather, were the result of precise computations.
LOL!!!!! Another saying : The less you talk, the more people listen.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good one!
DeleteAnother one I like is: "Telling the truth is easy. Being believed is often impossible!"
I see we have the usual mixture of science, simulation, art, clue reading - and dedication. For a few years now I have been bitten badly by the Bessler bug and my thoughts and actions go there waking and sleeping. For once I allowed myself to be tempted away and accepted an invitation of my daughter to do a tandem-paraglide - something I have never done before. The paraglider wing weighs only 8 kgs and you carry it in a rucksack up the hill. you unfold it on the ground, on a slope, against the wind. Attach yourself to it, throw it in the wind and run down the steep slope and launch yourself off the cliff. Then you soar like a bird. Exciting and delightful. It is not considered a risk sport, quite safe. As we were running like crazy, at take off with our running legs coming off the ground, it reminded me of the old films of the Wright brothers cycling like mad to lift their aircraft a bit off the ground. Same thing, but much advanced and perfected. Science said it wasn't possible. That's where dedication enabled advancement, and once it was shown to be possible, others perfected it. Seeing it work, trust and belief can follow. We owe so much to the pioneers. Hope that inspires us all to be pioneers with the wheel!
ReplyDeleteThere's an often told story about how a group of leading aerodynamicists got together during the 1920's to try to figure out how a bumble could fly. They applied their best equations to the problem and came up with the conclusion that flight of ANY kind for this insect was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. These were men with advanced degrees in engineering from prominent universities. From what they could see, the bee's body weight was WAY too much for the lift that could be provided by its relatively small wings and the muscles that moved these small wings even seemed too small.
DeleteDecades later, using more advanced aerodynamic formulas, it could be shown that, indeed, the bumble bee was PERFECTLY suited for flight! Apparently, there was some sort of unexpected vortex action created by the beating of its tiny wings that greatly enhanced their lifting capacity. Rather than being inferior to the type of flight that human made "fixed" wing aircraft could engage in, the bumble's flight method allowed it to hover and even fly BACKWARDS...characteristics that were not achieved with human made machines until the late '30's / early '40's. It was even discovered that those odd furry hairs that covered their tiny backs functioned as radiators to keep their wing muscles from overheating and cramping during flight! Those muscles, BTW, were found to be ABUNTDANTLY supplied with pure glucose from the nectar they gathered from flowers so that those undersized muscles they had were far stronger than originally thought back in the '20's. Not only did these bees have enough lift for take off, they could do so while carrying a relatively heavy load of nectar in their abdomens and pollen particles collected into tiny "baskets" made from curled hairs on their legs!
As someone was said, "It's a good thing the experts did not tell these bees that they could not fly, otherwise that might have been the end of flowers being cross pollinated and of our supplies of honey!"
I have no doubt that much the same will happen when Bessler's WORKING OB PM gravity wheel design is finally rediscovered and the first working replicas begin to appear that are conclusively shown NOT to be hoaxes. The "no track" skeptics will fall silent or apologetically offer excuses about how they generated all of the negative "noise" that they did because they did not know any better. They'll blame it all on our "educational" system and those who original taught them that such a device was physically impossible.
Of course, most of those "teachers" will probably be dead by then, but, if it was possible, I believe that we could follow an unbroken trail of negativity right back to the times of Bessler! Each "no track" skeptic "infecting" one or more younger persons with his erroneous arguments against PM and then those newly converted "no trackers" in turn passing their infection on to others. Sort of like what happens when Dracula bites a small group of victims, they all die and become vampires themselves, and then they spread the plague outwards from themselves in ever widening circles. And so we have today's present "negative" climate toward the possible existence of PM devices.
The replication of Bessler's wheels WILL change all of that, of course. BUT, be warned, do NOT expect their resurrection to change things much around the world. Remember what happened after Crooks invented the radiometer back in the 1870's. At the time it seemed amazing and all sorts of grandiose predictions were being made for it. That was over a century ago and we are STILL using basically the same fossil fuels they used then: coal, gas, and oil derivatives.
For me, I just want to finally learn, with as close to 100% certainty as possible, HOW Bessler did it. That will be more than enough reward enough for me.
Thanks Mimi, you know what? I'd love to do that but I have acrophobia and I can't consider it. But the image is wonderful and I can still picture myself doing it in my mind's eye, and that's what I do with Bessler's wheel - imagine I've just completed it and I place it on its stand and let go of it and it begins to turn, slowly at first, but then it gathers speed. I can even hear the sound it makes!
ReplyDeleteJC
Me too!..I have been in a powered hang-glider with the engine switched off.All you can hear is the hiss of high speed air over the wing.
ReplyDeleteThe only problem I have is the theories of wing lift on the internet is totally in error,..all ten of them!Their concept of flight is on the same level as the flat earth society.
I can see I'm going to have to write a book.
Finally after one month I am going to be able to get back to my wheel after moving house.There is just one thing to do and there should be results soon.
If Bessler had been interested in flight, he probably would have invented the aeroplane two centuries ahead of schedule! If he had and gave a demo flight, the skeptics in the crowd would have proclaimed he was a charlatan and his plane was supported by an invisible wire that was operated by his other family members and his maid!
DeleteGlad to read that you are getting back to your wheel. It's not a good thing to take too long a break from "the quest" lest it become a permanent "retirement"!
Yeah but it would only be powerful enough to fly a hamster.
DeleteI've often wondered why the "experts" were convinced that "heavier than air" aircraft were impossible. Over in China they had been making and flying kites for thousands of years. There is a story from ancient China about a peasant who made a kite large enough to carry an adult human occupant. Supposedly, he made several such "flights" in this kite (today we would call it a tethered hang glider) and was excitedly telling his neighbors how far off into the distance he could see from an altitude of several hundred feet.
DeleteThe news quickly spread and it wasn't too long before the Emperor himself heard about this astonishing feat and then summoned the peasant to his palace to describe it to him in detail. The peasant did as commanded and was expecting a big reward from the Emperor. Instead, the emperor had him promptly EXECUTED (by beheading, of course) for having DARED to have risen CLOSER to Heaven than the Emperor could! The Emperor was convinced that HE was the emperor of, not only China, but the ENTIRE universe which, of course, included the sky and, clearly, the peasant's "flights" might throw that "truth" into doubt amongst those that the Emperor depended upon to maintain his power and enforce his divine will. This could NOT be allowed!
Message: Doing great things can give one a nice feeling, but those who are envious might decide to make sure you don't do it again! Was Bessler's fall from the top of the windmill "just" and accident? Hmmm....
Yeah,..I know the feeing!Sometimes a break can help you get a fresh objective look at things.
ReplyDeleteHere’s a little more of The Treasure Hidden in Plain Sight: MT9-140, another jewel from the treasure trove of visual clues, one of those assisted by Bessler’s accompanying notes:
ReplyDeleteThe Usual Arms Clue
In the notes accompanying MT28 Bessler introduces his “usual arms” clue. The usual arms also appear in MT29, MT53 and MT80.
The arms are curved at the ends because they receive The Bow element of The Mechanism, when The Small Weight Armature is retracted.
See my drawing MT28/JFW
JW
The arms act as cam lobes.
DeleteNo, they don't
DeleteThat "treasure" you think you've found in MT is really just a bunch of WORTHLESS trinkets. Not gold, but brass! Not gems, but glass! I'm looking for the REAL gold and gems and I know EXACTLY where they are located...in the two DT portraits!
DeleteMT 28, 29, and 53 are what I refer to as "Self-Kicker" mechanisms. The idea being that the motion of a wheel raises a weight. At a certain point the weight is released and falls to deliver a "kick" to the wheel again to keep it in motion. The wheel is then supposed to again raise the weight so that the process will continue indefinitely. It WON'T! If constructed, one will quickly discover that it takes a bit more energy to get the weights back to their release point than the wheel's momentum from the previous kick can deliver. This is due to the inevitable loss of energy / mass by the wheel as it overcomes friction and air resistance and tries to raise the weight again.
MT 80 is not a "Self-Kicker", but, rather, a "Self-Pumper". Again, due to various forms of energy / mass robbing drags in the design, the amount of water raised will be less than the amount needed to keep the mechanism operating and it will eventually stop.
Meanwhile, I can not get this AP quote out of my mind:
"According to him [Wagner], Nature dictates that things gravitate downwards. But the weights, which rest below must, in a flash, be raised upwards, and it is this, that Wagner cannot force himself to accept. But, crazy Wagner, just note that that is indeed the case with my device."
It's obvious to me that the "weights which rest below" refers to the weighted levers as they travel from the 6:00 to 9:00 positions of a CW rotating drum. And, it's also apparent from the models I am working with that their weights must BEGIN drawing closer to their rim stops as their pivots pass the 9:00 position of the drum.
Bessler tells us that this process happens "in a flash". Now I am wondering if he meant that (a) it happens just as soon and COMPLETELY as a lever's pivot passes 9:00 OR (b) that it happens completely near the END of a 45 degree increment of drum rotation as the pivot approaches the 10:30 position of the drum OR if (c) it happens GRADUALLY during the ENTIRE time that the pivot transits from the 9:00 to 10:30 positions of the drum.
"In a flash" would seem to rule out option (c) above. Also, maintaining the maximum OB of the drum's 8 weights would seem to rule out option (b). That leaves only option (a) which implies a rather sudden shifting taking place in the orientation of a weighted lever as its pivot passes the 9:00 position of the drum.
I think I'm going to pursue option (a) and see what the requirements would be in order to make that work.
Ok, the arms act as half lobes on a cam. The increasing radius of the cam lobe raises the lever. When the lever is at it greatest height (corresponding to the greatest height of the lobe), as the cam continues to rotate, and the back half of the lobe is missing, the lever drops.
Deletewhoah this wеblog iѕ fantaѕtic i rеally like stuԁying уour aгtiсles.
ReplyDeleteKeep up the great woгk! Yοu recognize, lotѕ of ρersons аrе looking arоunԁ fог this іnfοrmation, уou can help them
greatly.
Ηere is my webѕite :: bad credit payday loans
I blog oftеn аnd I genuinely thаnk you foг your cοntent.
ReplyDeleteYour articlе hаs really pеakeԁ my іnterеst.
I am gоing to book maгk уоur
blog and keеp chеcking for new іnformation
аbout once а weeκ. Ι οpted in for your RSЅ feed as wеll.
Also visit my ωеb pagе ...
payday loans
My web site :: payday loans
Thank you a bunch for sharing this with all people you actually know what
ReplyDeleteyou are talking approximately! Bookmarked. Kindly also consult with my site =).
We could have a link change arrangement between us
Have a look at my web-site :: http://nudebabepic.com/index.php?own=2493454
I read this post completely about the resemblance of most
ReplyDeleterecent and previous technologies, it's remarkable article.
Feel free to surf to my page :: more
I am extremely impressed ωith your ωritіng ѕkills and alsο ωіth the layout on your weblog.
ReplyDeleteIs this а paid themе or did you сustomіze іt youгself?
Anyωay keep up the niсe quality writing, it's rare to see a great blog like this one nowadays.
Take a look at my weblog ... instant loans
Yes! Finally sοmeоne ωrіtes аbout win.
ReplyDeletemу weblοg; small loans
my web site > small loans
Marvelous, what a blog it is! This blog gives useful
ReplyDeletefacts to us, keep it up.
Also visit my web site ... Visit
Thank you a bunch for sharing this with all people you really realize what you are speaking approximately!
ReplyDeleteBookmarked. Please also consult with my web site =).
We will have a hyperlink change arrangement between us
my blog ... at sex vids
Hello to all, it's truly a good for me to visit this web page, it consists of important Information.
ReplyDeleteStop by my homepage ... payday loans
magnificent put up, very informative. I'm wondering why the other specialists of this sector don't notice this.
ReplyDeleteYou should continue your writing. I am sure, you
have a huge readers' base already!
Feel free to surf to my blog: http://pornharvest.com/index.php?m=2084061
What i do not гealize is if tгuth bе told
ReplyDeletehow you are now not reаlly muсh mоre ѕmагtly-likеԁ thаn yοu mау be right
noω. You're very intelligent. You understand thus considerably in terms of this subject, made me in my opinion imagine it from so many numerous angles. Its like women and men aren't іnѵolved unlеss іt іѕ something to acсοmplish with Laԁy gaga!
Υour οwn ѕtuffs outѕtandіng.
Alwaуs maintaіn іt up!
Hеre iѕ my ωeblοg private loans
Hi! I'm at work browsing your blog from my new iphone! Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts! Carry on the excellent work!
ReplyDeleteMy website: A Porn Movies