'T.O.M.I. Flapper' applied to a S.M.O.T., Self-Runner...

[hansvonlieven]

G'day all,

Bishop John Wilkins ( 1614 - 1672 ) would be absolutely delighted to see these pages on the internet.

In case you have never heard of him, here is a little history lesson that I can assure you is on the subject under discussion.


Bishop John Wilkins is probably best known as a founder and first secretary to the British Royal Society (founded in 1660 and received the Royal Charter in 1662). He compiled several books during a period in history when the "magical arts" were being overtaken by "scientific and mechanical arts", and people began to realize that many things once thought magical could be understood by science.

In 1648 he published a book called: "Mathematical Magick or the wonders that may be performed by mechanical geometry".

In this book Wilkins discusses the 'difficulty' of achieving perpetual motion, and considers in detail a device attributed by Schott (in his 1659 "Thaumaturgus Physicus, sive Magiae Universalis Naturae et Artis") to Johannes Taisnierus [Dircks, 1870, p. 93]. It consists of two tilted ramps, an iron ball, and a magnetic lodestone fastened at the top. [This was a "clad" lodestone, a natural chunk of magnetic ore encased in an iron ball, such as used in Gilbert's experiments.] The lodestone at the top (A) pulled the ball (F) up the straight ramp, where it fell through the hole (B) to the lower ramp, rolled down, and through another hole (F) to the straight ramp where it was pulled up again.

After a detailed discussion of practical difficulties, Wilkins finally gets to the bottom line, noting that "the bullet would not fall down through the hole, but ascend to the stone." But he still has some hope that such a device might be made to work.

This is a picture of the device

and here is a picture of the man

See anything familiar?

Hans von Lieven

[Omnibus]

What's the point of your little condescending blabbering trivialities? Yours is some useless  text of a well-known unsuccessful effort. @tao's is still to be studied and the fact that someone has been unsuccessful doesn't mean @tao will be. It's like telling us that because you don't have any talent everybody else doesn't have talent.

[hansvonlieven]

G'day Omnibus and all,

The point is that nothing has changed, By simply re-arranging a lot of magnets nothing changes in the actual forces at play.
No really new element has been introduced into the setup.

The SMOT idea works in EXACTLY the same way as that historical device with EXACTLY the same outcome.

Hans von Lieven

[Humbugger]

@tao

I'm confused by your two presentations.  The first is an animation of a continually-rotating device; the second seems like an entirely different setup with a ramp that pivots, as a see-saw, it appears.  The first unit is symmetrical and the second seems not to be at all.  In the second depiction, you don't show an animated sequence of operation, so I am not able to visualize how it is purported to work at all.

Most confusing is the fact that you seem to refer to both of these as depicting the same approach or concept, suggesting that they show a prior machine by a deceased inventor.  Which lovely model are we talking about replicating?  How does the second system proceed to cycle?  Please explain.  Thank you.

@omnibus 

This is not an invitation for you to attack and begin once again to spew venomous insults.  I am openly admitting that I am confused by the two apparently different presentations and am asking the presenter to explain and clarify.  Thank you for restraining yourself.  I know you vehemently despise me and think me an incompetent idiot whose very existence is a waste and insult.  Your opinion has been duly noted and registered on several prior occasions.  No need to further elaborate.

[Omnibus]

G'day Omnibus and all,

The point is that nothing has changed, By simply re-arranging a lot of magnets nothing changes in the actual forces at play.
No really new element has been introduced into the setup.

The SMOT idea works in EXACTLY the same way as that historical device with EXACTLY the same outcome.

Hans von Lieven

No, it doesn't. It doesnt work in exactly the same way. Absolutely not. Q working model should be a result of fine-tuning which hasn't been applied to the medieval trial. A broken watch looks exactly the same as a working one but they in fact differ, the non-working watch doesn't work while the working ticks.