Tuesday, 5 December 2017

Premature Prognostication, Speculation but No Working Model...Yet.

Just a quick blog while I prepare to share my next clue.

How many miles of text has been written on or about Johann Bessler, aka Orffyreus? This is my 515th post on this blog, plus I have posted 2254 times on the Besslerwheel forum ... but not all of these other ones were by me, 252639 posts on 6530 topics.  I arrived there 5th November 2003 and here we are 14 years later and no nearer in real terms than we were back then!  I can’t even guess how much has been written on other forums.  Good job I'm an incurable optimist!

Too much hot air, too much bandwidth, too much repetition, too much speculation, too much expectation, too much prevarication and too much procrastination..... did I miss anything?  So much energy expended for what...infinite speculation?  Yes I'm among the worst I admit, and yet without it we cannot progress.

Even though I must have been told why, a thousand times, I still disagree that gravity did not provide the energy for Bessler’s Wheel.  I see weights fall and I know that gravity made them fall, but I’m frequently corrected because I should say that gravity enabled the weight to fall.  To me this is merely sophistry. (Sophistry is reasoning that seems plausible on a superficial level but is actually unsound, or reasoning that is used to deceive)

I’m not suggesting that anyone intended to deceive but it looks like a way to explain something which otherwise would go against the prevailing opinion; I should probably say that it “goes against the laws of physics”, but they are no more than suggestions anyway, and you can’t be fined or sent to prison for breaking the laws of physics. 

As I see it - Johann Bessler insisted that gravity alone provided the energy for his wheel. And many people believe that he was genuine because the evidence is so convincing. If gravity is even to be considered as the energy provider we should pick apart the reasons why.

We've been here before, and more than once, but I still firmly believe that there is a way to use gravity to drive Besser's wheel.  This is what we know ...and a little speculation!  So 'F' for fact and 'S' for speculation

F. Gravity is described as  a force.  

F. It exerts its influence on objects of mass, such as a weight and can cause it to fall.

F. It acts on an object without physically coming into contact with it and is called a non-contact force.

F. A contact force is a force applied to a body by another body that is in contact with it.

F. The origin of all contact forces can be traced to non-contact forces.

F. The energy exerted does not have to result in motion  -  Holding a rope taut is using force. Pulling something along with rope is using energy ...and it could be just. my energy.

F. If there is no movement as a result of the exertion by the force such as occurs in the rope analogy above then the energy is potential energy, and it could be my  potential energy. See next point.

F. There are two sources of energy available to me for the above analogy; firstly there is gravity in the form of my weight and its potential to fall backwards and pull the rope; or secondly I could hold on to something attached to a wall and just pull using my muscular energy and there is no requirement for gravity's help.  

F. The rope does not care where the energy is coming from, but the result is the same.  The rope remains taught and my energy can be described as potential.  If the object to which the rope is attached moves, then in both cases the potential energy is released and becomes kinetic energy..

F. There is a "conservation of energy" law. But there is no "conservation of force" law.  Why? Because the force is continuous, and therefore does not need to be conserved but the very fact that it is continuous is exactly why it will power a perpetual motion machine. The force is perpetual. 

F. The law of conservation of energy simply means that the amount or package of energy being used, is not replaced, but because it can't be destroyed it does change its form into, for instance heat.  In which case it cannot be used to drive a perpetual motion machine, so let me repeat :-

S. Because the force is continuous, and therefore does not need to be conserved, is exactly why it will power a perpetual motion machine. The force is perpetual.

So I think that gravity is the source of energy for Bessler’s wheel and no other source is needed and it can’t and won’t be found. 

Yes I know that gravity is a force and it can’t be tapped directly for energy and the energy has to be obtained via an agent, in this case weights, but to me that is like saying petrol driven cars don’t obtain their energy from petrol, but from the heat produced from the combustion produced by igniting  the petrol in a series of controlled explosions and they are therefore not petrol driven!  So they are internal combustion engines.

You could describe Bessler's wheel as a system of weights enabled by the force of gravity to cause a wheel to rotate continuously, but I prefer gravity-wheel and petrol or diesel engine.

Just my speculation!

JC

21 comments:

  1. Given Newton's laws of motion, plus gravity, the only way to break CoM and CoE is by using gravity to invert the sign of counter-momentum.

    Thus, instead of inducing equal opposing momentas for a net zero change, we can induce the same total amount of momentum, performing the same amount of work, yet as one sign only.

    The first time we do this, we end up with only 25% of our input energy remaining. 75% is 'destroyed' - irreversibly lost to the 2nd law of thermodynamics; this interaction is not time-symmetrical, and cannot be undone.

    The second time we do it however, we're left with 50% of our input energy remaining.

    The third time - so having used gravity to raise three equal-sized portions of single-signed momentum - we end up with 75% of our input energy left as KE in our system of moving masses, and only 25% lost.

    A fourth identical purchase of momentum brings us up to unity - all of our input energy remains present as KE in our system. At this stage, it would make little difference if we'd raised this same amount of momentum by any other, conventional, means.

    A fifth identical purchase of this same amount of single-signed momentum however takes us to 125% of unity - we now have 25% more KE than we have spent as input energy.

    After a 6th, we're left with 150% of our input energy.

    And so on, gaining another 25% with each successive interaction.

    No net work is being performed by gravity however - all of this momentum is being raised by work we're performing and paying for. Gravity merely reverses the sign of half of it, but does so freely.

    This is the only solution available. There simply is no other possibility.


    These are Bessler's "quarters". This is why no. 5 is significant. It is why the AP wheel shows "three quarters" (representing irreversible loss). MT 137 uses the same symbolism to show us "12 quarters" - ie. 300% unity. It solves the toys page, and must be the key principle to be applied to all other significant MT images and other clues.

    This IS the solution, John, and we're all wasting our time chasing any other hypothesis... This is, quite definitively, the only possible classical symmetry break in mechanics + gravity; not only fully consistent with all laws of motion and CoM / CoE, but fully dependent upon them at every stage.

    If you are intent on getting closure on this case, then you simply must get to grips with what i am telling you. However unintuitive, this is the form of the solution we're presented with, and so we must work with what we're being offered, and adapt to it. Tame it. Pwn it.

    Because i can guarantee you there isn't gonna be anything else...

    THIS IS DEFINITELY IT!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Like it or not, Collins is right, you are wrong, Viberator5. You are overlooking mechanical advantage. Sam Peppiatt

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Sam

    Unless we're talking some kind of mechanical advantage beyond the bounds of the laws of motion and gravity, no, like it or not, i have missed nothing.

    Gravity and mass are constant, therefore the integral of input force times displacement can only be equal to that of the output integral for any closed-loop trajectory, no matter what form of leverage is applied.

    JC would be right that a static uniform field such as gravity is a requirement for Bessler's exploit to work. His wheels did depend upon gravity. But not only did he never claim they were powered by gravity, but he also explicitly refuted the very possibility that such 'gravity wheels' were possible.

    On the contrary, he stated that the motive power of his wheels came from the weights themselves, and that "in any true PMM, everything must, of necessity, go around together" with "nothing hanging stationary from the axle" (paraphrasing here).. this of course is NOT a requirement for a gravity-wheel scheme, even if they were viable, which they're obviously not. However it IS a defining requirement of a wheel powered by an effective violation of Newton's 3rd law.


    So i am sorry that the solution is not what you were expecting. Sorry i don't have a design to demonstrate it yet. But i promise you, i know this is the correct solution.

    The only reason i know this is because i have conclusively and comprehensively eliminated all other possibilities. Again, given Newton's laws of motion, plus gravity, the only route to mechanical OU that is possible and doesn't require any magic, is this one; using gravity (or any suitable force field) to invert or reverse the sign of an applied counter-momentum.

    This results in a momentum and corresponding counter-momentum of equal sign and magnitude, instead of cancelling quotients. All of it is payed for by input energy. Doing it once causes a 75% loss, doing it twice causes a 50% loss, three times, a 25% loss, four times for unity and five times for 125%, 6 for 150%, 7 for 175%, 8 for 200% and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I totally accept that this looks nothing at all like the solution anyone was expecting. But it IS the solution, and no other, alternative, option is possible.

    No ifs, buts or maybes. No doors left slightly ajar, no wiggle room or uncertainties whatsoever, this is categorically the correct and only possible solution to Bessler's wheel, so take it or leave it, but i can guarantee that you will NOT find another... We can work with what nature's offering us, or turn our backs on it and keep digging for buried treasure, but i assure you that this is the key to everything - it is what Bessler was referring to in his "climbing higher on Jacob's ladder" quip - the rungs of the ladder are this 25% accumulator on the efficiency of successive inversions of applied counter-momentum. It's the hidden meaning the enigmatic circles and squares in his drawings, and likely, his reference to the problem of "squaring the circle" - three squares in a circle imply irredeemable loss / damnation (hence the AP wheel motif) four squares in a circle represents unity and five or more, over-unity.

    It's the "special thing" behind the scissorjacks in MT 41, the key to the Toys page (MT 138-141), plus MT 143, 137, 135, 134, 133, MT 14, 15 & 16, 24 & 25.. probably a load more i've overlooked, besides the Kassel engravings and wheel + pendulum / spooling bucket / box, etc. etc.

    But any and all such consistencies are moot regardless - even if Bessler was a fraud, the solution to mechanical OU i'm describing is real, and i'd simply be the first to discover it. But i'm not - Bessler's clues only make sense in the context of this gain mechanism. The magic of number five. The squares and right-triangles. The Toys Page - all of it is Bessler's way of saying "Look - I've been here before you!"... Leibniz, Wolff and Weiss etc. all testified to have witnessed mechanical OU. Bessler definitely had it. And this is the only possible thing he COULD'VE had. No. Other. Options.

    I've deduced the only possible solution, from first principles, in all of classical mechanics.. which is a lot easier than one might think.. but the upshot of it all is that i cannot be wrong. This is it. Use gravity to cancel / invert / reverse an internally-apllied counter-momentum, accumulate that momentum five times in a row and you now have 25% more energy than you started with.

    So as demented as it sounds, i am definitely right, everyone else is definitely wrong, and this isn't merely an opinion. I don't expect anyone to believe me. I don't expect anyone to even try to understand me. I'm just being as honest and objective as i'm able, and hoping against hope that someone, somewhere, will realise what i'm saying and finally close this case, should i fail for any reason to cross the finishing line myself..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vibe,
      could that be why the use of an ampersand (&)?
      A weight taking a more circuitous route in one direction, and straight across in the other.
      I think I once saw an experiment where two bearings were on tracks, one straight, the other like a roller coaster.The bearings were let loose at the same time, but the one on the roller coaster won the race, despite having further to travel, it was something to do with gaining momentum on the downward slope.
      Do you think something like that was at work in Bessler's wheel?

      Delete
    2. Mr V, thank you for profound and extensive post. For me the problem I have is I don’t understand your explanation so I can’t decide whether I agree or not.

      So for a start, what do you mean by the word ‘sign’?

      What is CoM and CoE?

      What is net zero?

      What is time-symmetrical?

      There’s a lot more jargon in your text which I am uncertain about. I’m not criticising your words its just that although I think I understand most of it, i’m not sure. Counter momentum for example I have an idea what it means but how it fits in with your description ...well I’m sorry but I just don’t know.

      Lastly I am certain that you have not covered every possible design, because I have a very good idea if Bessler’s design. But even if i’m right I can’t tell from your description whether we are talking about the same thing or not.

      Sorry for sounding negative Mr V, but if you could use simpler language I might get your drift. :-)

      JC

      Delete
    3. PS my excuse is that I’m 72 and we used different jargon in my school days.

      JC

      Delete
    4. I was unable to find any relevant definitions of CoE nor CoM. Church of England, or Curch of Massachusetts?

      JC

      Delete
    5. John, the fellow is writing as theoretical physicists do to one another.

      Although I as well cannot comprehend much of it, for me what he puts-out possesses that most scarce silv'ry ring of truth about it. This is why I have copied down his words for permanence and future reference.

      The fact that he has from since forever chosen to not address me directly, does not in any way work to obviate this.

      Does he have in-hand a workable solution that might enable him or someone to construct what we seek?

      Obviously not but, save for a few items here-and-there such as:

      "These are Bessler's "quarters". This is why no. 5 is significant. It is why the AP wheel shows "three quarters" (representing irreversible loss)."

      where he for an instance absolutely is mistaken as to the Apologia Wheel and it's significance, he seems to me not too far from grabbing-hold of the brass ring.

      Theoreticians/thinkers are not necessarily doers but, they usually get the credit, unlike we, the reducers-to-practice or, the designer/builders of things tangible/operative.

      This time around, however, this is NOT again to prove the usual case-lamentable.

      By no means, I strongly suggest, are Vibrator's difficult words and theoretical passions "to be sniffed at".

      James

      Delete
  5. @ Viborator 5, You are a down right good talker. What you write is fascinating!
    I have to back up a little bit; haven't done it yet so I could be wrong. However I still think just using gravity would be easier. But, Fletcher told me to keep my mouth shut, so will leave it at that, Sam

    ReplyDelete
  6. As far as I understand it:
    CoE = conservation of energy
    CoM = conservation of momentum

    sincerely
    5park

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks 5park. I thought that was what meant, but I get really irritated when people use acronyms and jargon. So I act dumb.

      JC

      Delete
  7. I echo John's comments; Vibrator's posts here are interesting, but I can't understand how the successive 75% 50% 25% energy losses and then, especially, the gains are achieved. Can any example calculations of this be given?

    As I've said before, the sign of momentum can easily be reversed, just by elastic impact against Earth. If a highly elastic rubber ball is dropped from a certain height against a hard Earthed surface, after impact its velocity and hence its momentum are reversed in sign. But it will then rise to almost its original height with almost its original energy (since K.E. is proportional to velocity squared, the sign of velocity is irrelevant for K.E.) There is nothing like a 75% loss of energy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Build it and they will come.

      Delete
    2. No need to apologise for keeping the explanations simply Michel, you’ll bring us all with you if we can all understand you.

      JC

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. COM is also commonly referred to as center of mass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks jso. I respect mr v, but for me he uses too many acronyms and jargon and I find my eyes glazing over at the sheer length of his posts.

      JC

      Delete

Johann Bessler and the Orffyreus Code

On 6th June, 1712, in Germany, Johann Bessler (also known by his pseudonym, Orffyreus) announced that after many years of failure, he had s...