PM's "open secret"...

[iacob alex]

A
  ...or a possible real understanding,to realize a gravity powered device (so long discredited "perpetuum mobile"...) ,in my opinion has no cryptic significance.

    More ,this two words denomination is the whole deal,come to terms.

    Let's open a single book,the latin dictionary...and play a simple puzzle-word.

    The word  "perpetuum" ,between many others meanings is pointed out as..."uninterrupted".

    The word  "mobile",among others connotations ,is accounted for..."flowing freely".

    The gravity phenomenon,can be explained easy,as an "uninterrupted free flow",if we have in mind the rain or a free falling mass.

     For a common approach,to imagine  a PM device,we can make use of the same suggestive equivalence :"uninterrupted fall".

     The key word is "uninterrupted".   

     If you take a look at  "Wheel vs. lever..." "A simplified MT13t..." topics,there is a proposal,so that PM can be "rediscovered" as simple as possible,not as an unbalanced wheel,but as an unbalanced lever.

     Less is more:perpetuum mobile,as an ingenious definition,can illustrate in the same time,a phenomenon and a minimum word-picture-design.

     Words,as is well known,sometimes are great friends,sometimes are great foes of reality:it depends how we take use of them!

          All the best! / Alex

[infringer]

There is quite a bit of effort that has gone into these things over the years from bessler to whomever is the current researcher in this field and many as you put it proposals and none have came to fruitation as of yet...

I would love to be proven wrong by the and be able to bare the fruits of all of this labor.

[iacob alex]

        Hi Infringer !

  In Europe,the history of PM ,takes birth long time before Bessler (1712),with Villard de Honnecourt(1235).

  Take a look at his design (a rim with 7 hammers),something different than Bashkara's unbalanced wheel with mercury.

  You can see the evolution of the same basic unbalanced wheel idea(Taccola,Leonardo da Vinci,Bessler and others).

  Bessler (see MT13/Maschinen Traktate ) minimized the short arm-long arm switch time/space from 180*(Villard,Taccola,da Vinci) to 90*.

As you know,the only problem of PM is this self-switching from short arm into the long arm.

The most important matter in gravity is the fall time(and space),as a modality to get power ,due to the nonlinear(ever increasing) characteristic of this phenomenon.

A wheel concept (many spokes) allows a limited fall (step by step ),so we can't "open the gate" for gravity power.

A lever concept (two spokes only),gives the go-ahead for a maximum vertical fall (180*).

With a small apparent "trick",we can get even more :an incredible ~360* equivalent fall,so even a greater "harvested " power for a single fall sequence.

  If you run your eye over the history of PM (now as a "technical folklore"...),after you take a look at my topics at this forum (and   www.besslerwheel.com   ...),you can understand easy,that the single problem of a possible PM ,is to look on his evolution and to simplify an old idea:simple hinged gravity wheel into a simple hinged gravity lever.

The last design is a whipping lever (a lever with a single hinged arm...in the old tradition of PM),as a self-oscillating body ,in a gravity flow.

Sure,the real last step,is a simple test.

     All the best! / Alex

[iacob alex]

   ...can be related,as a "free" rotating crank,due to gravity fall.

      The continuous unbalance is due to the torque difference,on the same side of the fulcrum/pivot.

      This unbalance is a dynamical ,not a statical one :we need a release of gravity's main property,the ever increasing fall velocity.

      We must play so,not "1*g" only,but "many* g".

      It's not a static process(weighting machine),but a dynamical comparative procedure.

      The most expressive prime line design is the classical lever,and a hinged part,as simple as Milkovic's "hammer with a pendulum".

      This time we have ,also two spare parts,only:a rotating lever and the hinged part playing short arm(hinged position),then long arm (turn up position).

      Take a single variable arm, from the simple hinged gravity wheel,then add on the opposite side an unbending,constant arm .

      Let's say that we use two equal masses.

     The constant arm provides the medium torque.

     The variable arm plays sometimes as a greater torque(than medium),sometimes as a smaller torque (than medium),due to the switching part .
   
      Switching part is self in the bottom position ,due to gravity (becomes "hinged",and so short arm< medium arm).

     The same switching part,can be self ,in the top position,due to rotational inertia (the "hinged" part is overthrowed 180*,and so the long arm> medium arm).

      All the best !  /  Alex

[iacob alex]

.....if we take a look at :
     https://images.app.goo.gl/eDa6wVzAASLHaavA6
.....but with a different starting position ( inverted pendulum...) ?!
     Al_ex