Computer Simulation...

[Fletcher]

It's two devices that feed each other, but one is faster than the other, so a third device is needed for timing.

It is two completely different motions that work well when in time with each other.

It causes a shift in rotation.

They climb. They fall. Sometimes they weigh an awful lot but then disappear. But that's okay because they come back when you need them.

Not wanting to scare you away or anything spinner ... in fact I'd like to hear more from you ...

I happen to agree with your theory of symbiosis as a principle of operation.

Perhaps a sub-OU Prime Mover device and a non perpetual secondary OB device which when interactive give more positive torque than negative ?!

[eccentrically1]

Wubbly's suggestion is the only one that seems to have any potential to obey the Laws of Nature and Physics but no one has managed to figure out the mechanics for it.

I think it's a misnomer to call this a gravity assist maneuver. It makes people think gravity has done the work. It would be better to call it an orbital energy maneuver, or similar. The assist doesn't come from gravity, it comes from the motion of the planet. The motion of the planet slows down and the motion of the satellite speeds up. The gravitational field is unaffected.
Jim's idea is based on this. (Drums fingers on table.)

[MrVibrating]

(snip)

So you have to find an interaction unexplained by conventional science to find PM...

I don't disagree with that, but I would suggest that such an interaction could possibly be unexplained simply because it is a type of interaction that has just not yet been considered rather than that the accepted scientific laws currently on the books are incorrect or wouldn't apply.

In other words, the empirical laws in the books might actually allow for such a thing already and the scientists and others could just be ignorant of that.

This could mean they already have the keys to the kingdom but just don't know how to use them to enter in themselves and would attempt to bar others from entering in due to their own ignorance, hypocrisy and self-righteousness.

Bang-on, IMHO mate.

If it's possible, then it must be so because of the standard classical laws, not in spite of them. The exploit depends on the variability of CoM in relation to CoE in rotating systems, due to the variability of MoI circumventing the restrictions of mass constancy in linear systems.

As others have noted, we could create KE if we could reshuffle the balance of M and V for a conserved P; transfering or converting momentum into a mass reduction and consequent velocity and KE increase.

But in a linear system, mass constancy precludes this - the balance of M to V in the momentum of a body at rest is locked down by the invariability of M.

However in rotating systems, M is replaced by MoI, which is variable - for instance as a function of radial distribution of mass.

And we already can create RKE by dynamically reducing MoI... we just can't accumulate it cyclically, yet...

But Bessler's success is proof positive that such an exploit is possible, if we can find it.

If we can, then we'll be able to reshuffle the conserved balance of MoI and angular velocity, to create an effective rise in force (if MoI goes down and RPM stays constant, torque must rise). In other words, we can trade a drop in MoI for either component of an F*d boost - torque, or displacement / time (angular velocity). Whichever variable is held constant, the covariant quantity must rise to conserve net momentum.

This is consistent with the general assumption that local CoM is more fundamental than local CoE - indeed, the latter merely being an incidental consequence of the former in most cases.

If this approach is correct (and it appears to be the only one on the table in terms of classical mechanics), then momentum is so fundamental that CoE can be 'conserved' right out of existence. Energy schmenergy - so long as all the momentum's accounted for, nature's happy.

In a nutshell, momentum and energy have different dimensions, yet the latter is wholly dependent upon the former - P=MV, while KE=1/2MV^2. Thus CoE is entirely contingent upon the balance of M and V in the momentum terms; if that balance shifts, then for a given P, KE <> the length of a piece of string... we simply need an MoI variation that matches the amount of energy we'd like to create or destroy, and some means of accumulating it over successive cycles.

As such, the path to OU could be no more than an addendum to the page in every physics textbook explaining the ice-skater effect...

[jim_mich]

Did you miss my posts from last month?

In a nutshell, momentum and energy have different dimensions, yet the latter is wholly dependent upon the former - P=MV, while KE=1/2MV^2. Thus CoE is entirely contingent upon the balance of M and V in the momentum terms; if that balance shifts, then for a given P, KE <> the length of a piece of string... we simply need an MoI variation that matches the amount of energy we'd like to create or destroy, and some means of accumulating it over successive cycles.

Are you finally waking up?
From: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6689

IMHO, Bessler's wheel was a motion wheel.

If you transfer most of the motion out from one moving weight and into a second equal moving weight, thus reducing the velocity of the first weight and increasing the velocity of the second weight, while total momentum is conserved, then the total KE of the two weights will almost double.

This is the motive source of Bessler's wheel.

No physics laws are broken. The cycle is repeatable. The wheel gains motive force from the motions of its internal weights.

It takes a rotating environment to do this. It takes the motions of the two weights to be interlinked one to the other and the two weights must move in specific ways controlled by the internal mechanisms.

Gravity is not a factor.

The whole mechanical arrangement is extremely simple. Bessler wrote that he was fearful a buyer might be disappointed because of it being so simple. (or words to that effect)

When there's a transfer in momentum, we (or I) think about collisions.

You could substitute the word 'motion' in place of momentum. Though momentum is the more proper word.

Thus one moving weight transfers its motion to a second equal moving weight, resulting in the motion of the first weight dropping to near zero as the motion of the second weight almost doubles. And when the KE is calculated, then the KE of the faster weight is almost 4X while the KE of the slower weight has dropped to near zero. And thus you have almost doubled the useable KE without consuming any energy.

Usable harnessable energy is sometimes called ectropy, the inverse of entropy.

Fletcher keeps writing about unequal weights. In my example the two weights involved are of equal mass.
Also there is talk of collisions. In my example (during the primary phase) there is no collision.

You guys are a really something else.

I show you the energy source for a motion wheel and you reject it. And you go back to expecting gravity to supply perpetual energy. And the whole world knows that gravity is conservative and can't cause perpetual motion.

No, I did not show the full cycle of how the increased energy is moved to the rotating wheel. Nor did I show how the two weights maintain their speed. Nor did I show how the motions of the weights cause the weights to accelerate their oscillating.

The only thing I showed in this thread is how the weights gain their increased kinetic energy. And you Bozos assume that is the full sequence of events.

So you pat each other on the back. A couple high-fives. Guess we told Jim how ignorant he is. And you go on your way. While my explanation goes whoosh right over you heads.

I give up on you. There are some black crows waiting for you guys to eat.

Now MrVibrating is finally starting to understand.

[MrVibrating]

LOL ta mate, i do think we're inexorably closing in on an inevitable conclusion.

The problem with reshuffling momentum in linear systems is, as noted, mass constancy - the velocity of a given momentum of a body is inextricably constrained by mass constancy - and this limitation applies as much to multiple-body collisions as single-body systems. This was why i couldn't see any successful resolution of Fletcher's investigation of orthogonal linear momentum exchanges - mass constancy simply precludes trading M for V.

But MoI in rotating systems is almost an arbitrary function of mass distribution, offering us a way out of the linear impasse. I still hold out hope there may be other means of varying MoI besides radial mass distribution, since angular acceleration is the more fundamental factor varying with radial distance for a given RPM. But we have at least this one option already on the table, so all that remains is proving that it can or can't be harnessed cyclically.

Generating the gain is obviously trivial... holding on to it once MoI rises again is where the real ingenuity will come into play. But yep, i'm coming round to the reaslisation that there must be a solution to this close at hand, and this is really the only door ajar - both in terms of the available physics, and consistency with Bessler's clues and witnesses.

[spinner361]

A simulation program needs to show acceleration until up to speed.

[ME]

A simulation program needs to justify that there actually is acceleration until up to speed.

Fixed that for you.

[eccentrically1]

A real world replication would be nice to back up the conception in sim world.
Or in a formula, if the math justification is first in line.
If sim world is just math, the formula would show or justify an asymmetrical black box mech, like flubber, a super elastic in a fictional world. Since it's (More KE from KE) never been shown in the real world, or, we can't detect it, changing the math, or the variables to perfect conditions, to show a black box won't create a black box in the real world.
I think that is right. Let me know if it's not.

[ME]

We'll who cares about sim-world?

The nicest thing about sim- (or virtual reality)-world is that one can create things not physically possible. Especially in block-buster-movies where CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) takes over all kinds of special effects while the viewer barely notices.
I've shown somewhere, some time ago, a totally offtopic simulation of a formula (julia-brot) which is mathematically impossible to calculate in 3D; while not perfect and remainsl a work in progress it's still possible to tweak stuff in such a way that glimpses of 3D can be generated which are never seen elsewhere.

So all nice and dandy, but for PMM it's the other way around: for investigating a potential real-world PMM (or whatever it is classified) a sim-world trial would be nice to back-up the start of real-world replication.

When we have a real-world application, we can think ourselves silly what to call this thing, if it really is a PMM or is actually part of whatever classification, how to rewrite our consensus of physics, if our days will grow longer, or years will be longer, perhaps it affects our local space-time continuum and maybe even messes up our GPS system, or even eats up Muons for all we know and every mechanism mysteriously breaks sooner than expected.

Sim world is pure math by definition: Let's assume F=m*a, we can simply use that same Sim and see what happens when F=Sqrt(m*8+2)*exp(a)*pi, when we would have access to the used formulae. We need to keep in mind that such doesn't make any practical sense, or maybe in some extraordinary case it actually does.

There are studies claiming some people are easily affected by violent games (for example), so it is possible some of those "black boxes" have their influences on real-life situations.

My current view: when used correctly then simulators of any kind form a great tool, but still remain a tool usually outside or on the edge of reality: not good or bad persé.

I wouldn't have guessed this all was in need of some explanation...

[Fletcher]

It gets explained over and over ME .. but many people who don't use a sim program for design etc just don't get it for some reason.

It's probably because they just can't imagine using it and have nothing to compare to. Like a builder using a nail gun to build a house is far quicker than the claw hammer. Like a planer is far quicker than chisel for big jobs.

Only a sim is quicker by a factor of a 10,000 or greater.

[ME]

hmm, yeah you're right...

It's only like building a house just to get the technical drawing perfect, and then expect to be able to build a real-life Escher (not a fake one).

[jim_mich]

Like a builder using a nail gun to build a house is far quicker than the claw hammer.

LOL
In 1978 I framed my whole house using a heavy framing hammer. I often could drive a 16 penny nail in three hits. Air-driven nail guns, nails for the gun, and air compressors were expensive back then. I was on a tight budget, so I did it the hard way.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

I do not do sims, for the simple reason it would take me longer to understand how to use them correctly,

I find it easier just to bolt things onto a wheel and see what is happening, then measure the forces.

The best thing I have done is bolt a wheel hub to my garage wall so I no longer have a wheel frame taking up too much space.

Getting back to yours, and my post above, I will explain myself better.
Example, If a falling lever can create 4 Nm of positive torque, but only takes 2 Nm to lift it up back to the starting height (negative force) then there would be 2 Nm left over in the system to do external work, gained by using a more efficient mechanism over the normal equal and opposite experiments.

I do not see Bessler as a fraud, my thinking is Bessler discovered a more efficient mechanism over the ones shown to date.

[ME]

... but many people who don't use <...> just don't get it for some reason.

Example, If a falling lever can create 4 Nm of positive torque, but only takes 2 Nm to lift it up back to the starting height (negative force) then there would 2 Nm left over in the system to do external work, gained by using a more efficient mechanism over the normal equal and opposite experiments.

There are a lot of things I don't understand.... (that's why Fletcher was right)
This is one of those: I don't understand all that fuzz about some system energy output before it's build.

Your system creates 4 Nm, it takes 2 to reset... that's it. bingo. done.

Now, to complete your cycle properly it will probably take at least 2.5 or 3, or hopefully less then 4. Whatever is left is the actual power of the system, but only if you can reset such cycle.

No offence intended. Perhaps I'm tired. I'm off.

[eccentrically1]

hmm, yeah you're right...

It's only like building a house just to get the technical drawing perfect, and then expect to be able to build a real-life Escher (not a fake one).

Sims are useful, I agree. I'm not saying don't use them for research, just understand what your sims represent.

Aren't escher drawings "fake"? So you would expect a build of one to be fake.