Inegnuity v's Entropy 2 - Observations & Questions

[Tarsier79]

Is it a top down approach, or is it just that force,movement and impact calculations conform to energy conservation in nature as well?

The build I referred to earlier didnt just confirm i=mr^2, but seemed to confirm to me that i is relative to KE.

[Fletcher]

Is it a top down approach, or is it just that force, movement and impact calculations conform to energy conservation in nature as well?

Well, force = mass x acceleration. Mass is conserved, so acceleration is fundamental. If it's Bottom Up calculating accelerations for any given situation must follow some logic rules. Some rules of engagement, like the math language.

I think that for any 'known' application of mechanics (e.g. using mechanical advantage, speed ratio etc) that all those things you mention do conform to energy conservation which is just a reflection of those same 'known' mechanics in nature. For a loophole to exist in nature some other 'unknown application' of 'known' mechanics must be at work. If that could be demonstrated in real world then I personally doubt that a sim program would allow a violation of protocols in sim world and show it also. I guess that would be the acid test of whether WM is Bottom Up or Top Down.

The build I referred to earlier didn't just confirm I=mr^2, but seemed to confirm to me that I is relative to KE.

Yes, that's what your build showed. And it is what the pulley arrangements showed as well. Once you found the accelerations you could calculate the forces. Then you could find the displacements. The product gave the Joules of KE and this exactly matched the KE outputs calculated from velocity. There was complete symmetry. Part of that is the direct relationship of the system inertia to KE. IF as pequaide says, I = m r, then there would be an increase in system KE against GPE lost for his mechanisms.

BTW .. I don't know whether you noticed in the pics of the pulley systems sims. I had a field that calculated mv equivalence i.e. the driver had lost height but its acceleration was less than -10m/s^2 for reasons discussed. So I created a field using projected velocity at that height loss for the same driver mass in free-fall ( v = sqrt ( 2 'g' h ). Then underneath that I had the sum of the system momentum. They were not exactly matched, however Energies were.

[ME]

So basically you would like to have a simulation program which does not rely on CoE (only implied by some basic formulas)?

[Fletcher]

I would, especially if I were using it to find a symmetry break in classical physics using mechanics.

But because with are taught (and physics doctrine says so) that the Conservation Laws of energy and momentums are inviolate then human nature probably dictates the path of least resistance to building kinematic programs. You're gonna build the easiest way you know how, especially if its a Law. After all, a Law means never proven so far to be wrong and has stood the test of time.

That is, start with an assumption and then apply computation power to solve position and velocities to fit the overarching assumptions.

As an example, I assumed the pulley arrangements force x distance calcs would align exactly with sum of the mass x velocity squared. I had to reverse engineer those acceleration formulas to detail them. Alternatively I could have built a program (if I knew how) to run iterations that took account of positions, mass ratios, and gearing used. It would have popped out the same answer. The advantage is that it can be applied over more than one specific example.

..................................

Anyways, very soon the engineers, builders, modelers, tinkerers, simulators, mathematicians and theorists in our midst are going to get to stretch their legs as I look at the potential (as I see it) for storksbills as an integral part of a Prime Mover mechanism.

[MrVibrating]

The conclusion that the sim is inherently incapable of demonstrating OU is invalid, because both input and output integrals in the example system are coupled in parallel and symmetrical by design.

Instead, work backwards from the requirements for an asymmetrical system:

- in order for the system to be repeatable the input & output displacements must be cyclic, beginning and ending at the same respective locations

- therefore if D is constant then the only variable left to play with is F, which must undergo a free change in order to decouple input vs output integrals

I've made this argument before, and stand by it - any system, symmetrical or not, can be broken down into two (or more) discrete sims, run in sequence, perhaps even on separate days or computers. So input and output integrals can be completely isolated from one another, decoupled in the real world as much as in sim world, which would thwart any attempt by the sim to impose CoE artificially.

Yet even this is besides the point, which is simply that we WANT and NEED the sim to enforce CoE.

In a symmetrical interaction, both input and output integrals are entirely consistent with and dependent upon CoE.

And exactly the same is true of an asymmetric interaction!!!

An asymmetrical interaction is asymmetric precisely because of CoE, not in spite of it!!!

We want the sim to accurately model the input F*d, the free modulation of F, and the output F*d.


The pulley system above is only one HALF of an interaction! So of course it can only be symmetrical...

You're looking at the drop displacement as an input integral, and the lateral displacement as an output integral.

But this is the wrong perspective - it's not mathematically 'wrong', it's just inapplicable to the requirements of an asymmetric interaction - from which this pulley system only constitutes a net output integral. The drop mass AND the lateral sliding mass are together an output half of an interaction, but no input half has been included.

To put it another way both actions modelled here are actually only an output displacement, albeit one comprised of two separate masses on two separate axes.

A complete interaction, with respect to a system capable of exhibiting a disunity, would require that both masses return to their respective starting positions. This second combined action would give as an input integral, to compare against the present output one.

In this case, we can all instantly agree that this would seem pointless as the result can only be unity.

Yet if we could flick a switch that would freely modify the forces for the second half of the interaction over the same displacements, then the sim would faithfully model the result, even if it did so by simply applying CoE the same way it did for the first half.


One of the earliest physical models i tested a couple of years back was just a vertical scissorjack. I built it, measured the integrals by hand and concluded it was just a lever. This pulley study is basically the exact same work, yielding the exact same result from a diferent perspective. It's very thorough and well done, but fundamentally misconceived in its applicability and those of its conclusions WRT what an asymmetric interaction would actually necessitate.

Ultimately, the hypothesis that a simulation engine would be incapable of modelling an OU result implies that it would be unable to represent a change in force between input and output strokes of a fully reciprocal displacement (or set of displacements, as in this case). .. which in itself assumes the engine is unable to apply CoE (since any change in force must be fully consistent with CoE).

Obviously WM2D handles force variations just fine, ergo it will do so for a successful exploit.

But again, for a sanity check, input, output and the force varying principle could all be simmed independently if there were any doubts. Really though, this would be no less neurotic than doing the integrations by hand in separate notebooks. In separate rooms, isolated by 2 meter-thick reinforced concrete walls, in the presence of a certfied psychiatrist...


The only persistent doubt i have is whether or not an exploit is possible in two dimensions. But i've found no means to draw a firm conclusion on this question; although i doubt a solid refutation is possible either, but that's for another thread.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

let me know if you want to run some real world test on stork bills, because I have two stork bills wheel mounted on a build I am about to finish, I have only to lock them and balance the wheel before I add the weights and restraints.

TLW

Edit, http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6344

I am building 002 now, but if I need any more I will add 001 and 002 together, I am hoping to tap a velocity shunt to the positive from both opening and closing stork bills, thus the cords.

[MrVibrating]

Anyways, very soon the engineers, builders, modelers, tinkerers, simulators, mathematicians and theorists in our midst are going to get to stretch their legs as I look at the potential (as I see it) for storksbills as an integral part of a Prime Mover mechanism.

Yay! Grist for the mill!

I love a bit of grist, me. <licks lips>

[ME]

Fletcher,
I try to apply the same kind of strategy for a gyroscope... I don't expect it to be a working part of a prime-mover, but hopefully will teach me a lot about things that rotate.

Alternatively I could have built a program (if I knew how) to run iterations that took account of positions, mass ratios, and gearing used.

You know excel...
It has a build-in solver (help:"Solver"). I never used it myself but I do something similar with an all-purpose simple VB-macro creeping or jumping towards a solution. Perhaps I can help with that?

Anyways, very soon the engineers, builders, modelers, tinkerers, simulators, mathematicians and theorists in our midst are going to get to stretch their legs as I look at the potential (as I see it) for storksbills as an integral part of a Prime Mover mechanism.

I find storkbills a bit spring-like and thus unreliable in WM2d, but looking forward to your theory.

[Fletcher]

Thanks for the feedback fellas.

I was touching up a sim or two but its Friday afternoon here and soon to be beer o'cl, so that's on the back burner now.

The potential I see is in the geometry and action of the pantograph. In relation to being a 'black box mechanism' to fully (as practical) transmute and transfer linear momentum. And if it could do that then a KE increase is on the cards. A long shot I know, however I have reason to think there's a window of opportunity.

As far as a sim showing it I'm not at all sure Mr V. And I didn't advance far with the math as it was too difficult for me. Now that I'm back in civilization I am not motivated to spend more time and effort reverse engineering the math for a scissor mech also.

Yeah ME, I used to know how to use 'solver'. Haven't used in a while but could learn to again if I had too. Actually that's how I analyse problems usually as you can probably see by the way I structure my sims and spreadsheets.

Thanks Trevor .. your skills and insight will be welcome when the time comes.

.................................

Next I will be posting up a pulley arrangement facsimile of the storksbill arrangements. It has obvious shortcomings which I will discuss. I do that to short circuit the discussion on the scissors mech to come.

[Ed]

Anyways, very soon the engineers, builders, modelers, tinkerers, simulators, mathematicians and theorists in our midst are going to get to stretch their legs as I look at the potential (as I see it) for storksbills as an integral part of a Prime Mover mechanism.

Hi Fletcher,

Have you ever tried using the scissor mechanism script I wrote for wm2d? You can find it here. Let me know if you (or anyone) have trouble getting it to work. It saves time over building them by hand in wm2d. If you don't want to setup the script as a menu option, just copy and paste the whole thing into the script editor window, replacing what was there by default, and run it from there. It looks like it's about time for version 2.0. :-)

[Grimer]

... and changing reference frames.
...

I must confess I've only skimmed this thread - but I did come across the above interesting phrase of yours. :-)

I believe this is at the heart of understanding where the free energy associated with a pendulum action comes from as I will be explaining in my Trevor doppelganger thread.

Changing reference frames is psychologically very hard and I haven't much hope that anyone will be able to manage it. :-(

But I'll give it a go anyway.

[primemignonite]

Hi ME,

Your Quote,

So I vote: there's no such 2D-mechanism possible which end-result is a gain in energy (and thus eventually a gain in momentum, etc..)

.

I am not so sure. It may have already been done, and that why we are here.

Dear Trevor L.W.,

He is mistaken ; you are right ; and it certainly is.

CHEERS!

- James

[primemignonite]

* * * * *

Anyways, very soon the engineers, builders, modelers, tinkerers, simulators, mathematicians and theorists in our midst are going to get to stretch their legs as I look at the potential (as I see it) for storksbills as an integral part of a Prime Mover mechanism.

If I were Fletcher I would not waste my time. These devices, where they appear, are representational only being ones not meant per se to be conceived as mechanically manifesting, such having nothing tangibly to do with this Prime Mover.

(Just another half-baked opinion for The Record, you understand.)

- James

[primemignonite]

Apropos Mr. Vibrating specifically:

I think that If and when Bessler's true wheel were to appear and I were doing the picking, it would be he above all others that I would choose to do the analysis of the actual, working device.

Conceptually / creatively, all others just follow, drowning in his wake, but do not know it.

(For The Record, you understand.)

J.

[cbucket]

Changing reference frames is psychologically very hard and I haven't much hope that anyone will be able to manage it. :-(

But I'll give it a go anyway.

When one is working up a swing is one changing frames of reference ?

http://physicsinsights.org/up_in_a_swing.html