Poss. Symmetry Break?

[Fletcher]

Gotta dash off a reply ...

Radius of Gyration, LOL.

No nothing as exotic as macro's ME.

Just building from the ground up - testing just one mech, so it doesn't have to revolve till later when I fit extra mechs etc.

In the early days I did the math too. Then I would compare with WM when I got the program. Finally I didn't have to do the math anymore because its always consistent.

If it explodes or seizes its usually 'finger trouble' - I have to make some adjustments to accuracy etc, or perhaps change the calculation method.

I always try to build something another way as well - as a cross check.

That's why I'm convinced that if a Gravity Only mechanical system works it will be just one basic approach - one not seen before or probably after Bessler's time.

I try to look for that happenstance combination of physical elements that is off the richter scale in terms of what's been tried before - only it's not so happenstance ;7)

Whether jim_mich's math is good or bad I don't know. I know he's bright but that is no guarantee you can't be wrong.

If his math is consistent, and he were to show it and the design I would hope it was as 'simple' as he thinks, so that I too could see that a sim wasn't needed. That hasn't happened to prove his enthusiasm and confidence.

If he produces a working device and says it works as predicted I'd tend to believe him, even if it were covered - I have known him here for a long time.

[ovyyus]

If he produces a working device and says it works as predicted I'd tend to believe him, even if it were covered - I have known him here for a long time.

Ditto. Never before.

[Furcurequs]

I've answered this same question many times. WM2D can't properly handle my wheel. WM2D uses conservation of energy to solve for the motions of moving components. I have to set the parameter so loose that the results are meaningless. And when I tighten up the parameters then WM2D explodes the assembly, breaks the joints, and parts go flying in all direction at unrealistic speeds.

That is why I wrote my own VB program, so as to analyze and understand what was happening. My own custom program showed where and why there was an energy gain. I can now explain my motion-wheel in very few words. It is a sample as dropping a 12 foot log across a 10 foot creek. You know it will work beforehand. But of course the USPTO demands a working model for perpetual motion claims.

I find it greatly insulting when the trolls claim that my VB program must be wrong.

If I'm one of the "trolls" that you are referring to, my argument is more like this:

With your history of not only making errors with simple basic physics and math problems in this forum but also your defending of those errors for weeks and months on end even to the point of lying and impugning the integrity of others, I find it highly doubtful your hand written VB program showing "something that works" would be any sort of reliable indicator of an actual working design for a perpetual motion machine.

Of course, though, with something so extraordinary as a PMM, I wouldn't accept the output of the hand written VB program of ANYONE as evidence of a working design - though for some, perhaps, I might consider interesting results from their program reason enough to actually do a proper experiment.

I've been writing VB programs that animate the motions of objects for more than 30 years. If you make a mistake writing the code, then it is instantly obvious because you see the animated object move in a wrong way on the screen.

I believe ME made a valid point about this.

Seeing something moving in what you don't believe to be the wrong way isn't evidence that your math is correct. Your program may truly only be "animating" rather than properly "simulating."

I've used trig for even longer, to program CNC mills and lathes. Everyone makes math mistakes from time to time.

Indeed, jim_mich, and that's why your behavior seems so strange to me. We do all make mistakes and so in my own personal experience, I and others that I've worked with have always appreciated having our errors pointed out to us so that we didn't have to waste any more time building upon those errors.

You, on the other hand, seem to get all bent out of shape when your mistakes are pointed out to you - even to the point of your denying them and lying about them later while even trying to call into question the integrity of those kind enough to have pointed them out to you to begin with.

But such mistakes do not mean that you are ignorant of math or engineering.

Not if you can correct those mistakes when you or others catch them.

...but what if you, after your mistakes have been pointed out to you, instead of correcting those mistakes and being grateful, defend those mistakes for months on end even to the point of lying about what was really going on and trying to impugn the integrity of those trying to help you?!

I would have to say that ignorance is a very real option in such a case! ...if not some other issues, too.

It simply means that you did not take the time and effort to double check your numbers.

How much time and effort do you need?! The problem that was being addressed in my wager to you, I worked correctly in several different ways in a mere few minutes. You, however, still have not acknowledged the errors that you made back then, and you are misleading others about what really happened even still!

And in that one instance where I made a math error here on the forum, I posted a disclaimer saying that it was a quick calculation and had not been double checked.

For that one error that you actually did admit, right, you had posted a disclaimer on that one, and I'm actually proud of you for having admitted that it was wrong! Of course, though, that answer (and based upon the results of the multiple methods that I used to do the problem and later others' results too) was truly way way off, and by orders of magnitude, even, if I remember correctly, from what it should have been.

The problem with your account of what happened, though, is that you never admitted to the subsequent errors that you made when you supposedly corrected your math!

But the trolls keep throwing this in my face many years later.

It's years later and you've yet to be honest about what really happened! ...and, of course, you are calling those of us who have shown you corrections to your errors "trolls." ...lol

My point in that one instance was to show an alternate method of solving for rotational speed, based upon radius of gyration.

I'm not sure if that was a point you were trying to make initially when you were just attempting to work the problem for someone else. When I pointed out, though, that your answer was way off and that there was something wrong with what you were calling your radius of gyration calculation, that may have become applicable.

But that part of my post also went whoosh over everyone's head.

Well, you never actually demonstrated that you could get the correct answer with your method!

I was, however, able to find two errors in your calculations and so saw that if your ATTEMPTED method had been worked correctly it would have indeed given the correct answer.

I find it odd that you continue(d) to defend your incorrect work and mistaken answer rather than be honest and admit your errors.

I'm the one who has to say now that jim_mich's method would have worked IF it hadn't been for all the mistakes he made - including mistakes he has still not admitted.

How's that for "whoosh"?! ...lol

Also, in this thread, Centers of Gravity, Gyration and Oscillation, I showed evidence from what I believe was an edition of the handbook you used, that the equation you used out of it to calculate your "radius of gyration" actually gave something other than that. The equation you used gives the "radius of oscillation."

I also go over the difference between those two things in the thread.

Your use of this wrong equation in your calculations is one of the errors that I pointed out to you in the original thread - and that you've still not acknowledged.

After the relevant information that I presented, do you now know not to use (or at least how to properly use) the "radius of oscillation" formula in your own "radius of gyration" calculations?

Unfortunately, you have shown me evidence of your ignorance and dishonesty. I'm, of course, open to evidence to the contrary - but you don't seem to be providing it.

If you insist on playing the victim while calling other forum members "trolls" without truly acknowledging your own part in all of this, I suppose I have little in the way of options other than to try to just be as honest as I can.



Edited to change an "after" to a "when" and an "of" to a "from."

[ME]

Perhaps I'm lucky to just have 'missed' that historic battle, so I simply have no opinion about that.

I could suggest to Jim in reviewing some of his code (depending on how it's structured), without even knowing the actual mechanism. With -of course- a possible benefit I could get up to speed in creating my own simulator other than the small specific ones I previously build (although his code would probably also be as specific to his own task), and Jim could get an early second opinion on at least that part of his idea.

If such is a good suggestion, I'll see some reaction via PM with the conditions... or not, as it's obviously not Jim who needs convincing (other than creating a physical device).

[cloud camper]

Sadly, this is just a case of deja vu, all over again.

JM's previous liquid motion wheel attempt was identically the same scenario,
the same claims, all perfectly simulated and absolutely 100% guaranteed to work.

Failure was not possible, every angle had been studied, it would be the PM machine anyone could build.

OK, there was just one small mistake on the build, easily corrected.
That was 2 1/2 years ago and we're still waiting.

On the latest wheel, OK we just misdrilled a few holes and soon as those are
corrected, we will have true PM!

[John doe]

Unfortunately I can somewhat sympathize with him in that many of my sure fire ideas ran through my mental simulator made perfect sense to me and since I did not see exact or similar ideas I was sure no one had thought of was sure would work. However I must admit my ideas have not produced fruit thus far. I have not given up on them or the principles behind them but have began to look elsewhere for additional insights.undaunted I continue on sure the answer is just around the corner,as I begin to realize many other wise skilled and capable men have traveled the same or similar road only to give up in frustration or run out of time.
I cheer myself on with the axiom that "the only real mistakes are those you cannot or choose to not acknowledge and thus enable yourself to learn from."

[MrVibrating]

I just love the maths of this tho... P=MV, KE=1/2MV^2... so if P=100 kg/ms and M and V are both 10, KE = 500 J. But if the inertia is halved down to 5 kg, velocity must rise to 20 m/s to conserve P, and energy doubles to 1 kJ... the energy gained from the rise in velocity is not offset by the reduction in mass/ inertia, so although we have half the effective mass in flight, at double the speed it has twice the energy.

No offense intended, but doesn't the math for angular momentum, moment of inertia, and rotational kinetic energy contain terms for radius?

L = mrv

I = mrr

𝑲𝑬rot = 1/2 mrrvv

So mass and velocity are 10 initially and if the radius begins at 1, and is reduced to .5,

L = 10 x .5 x 20 = 100 (constant mass, new radius, velocity doubles to conserve momentum)

I = 10 x .5 x .5 = 2.5 (new moment of inertia, mass is easier to accelerate at new radius)

𝑲𝑬rot = 1/2 x 10 x .5 x .5 x 400 = 400 x 1.25 = 500 (KE conserved at new moment)

Unless I misunderstand, which has happened more times than I care to admit.

Okay, first let's run thru the linear scenario:

We begin with a 10 kg mass at 10 m/s, so momentum is 100 kg/m/s.

Then, because abracadabra, the mass halves down to 5 kg. CoM does its thang and V doubles.

Momentum is still 100 kg/m/s, but now divided between 5 kg and 20 m/s.

The initial energy was 10 kg at 10 m/s = 500 J.

The final energy is 5 kg at 20 m/s = 1 kJ.

So energy doubled because momentum was conserved.

Replacing mass with MoI just dispenses with the magic:

MoI = mass times radius squared.

So suppose we have 1 kg at 10 m radius, MoI = 100 kg/m/s.

If we halve the radius, MoI drops fourfold, down to 25 kg/m/s (because MoI doesn't simply sum but squares with radius).

So to halve the MoI by varying radius, we only need reduce it by just under 3 m; 1 kg @ 7.07106 m radius has 49.999 Kg/m/s of angular inertia.

Alternatively, it'd make the maths neater if we just halved our mass instead, since 0.5 kg at 10 m radius also has 50 kg/m/s of angular inertia. But rotation doesn't let us vary mass, anymoreso than linear accelerations. So all we can vary is radius...


Sooo, if radius drops by a factor of two, MoI is reduced, and velocity thus increased, both by a factor of 4 respectively (again, conserving net momentum).. then RKE has quadrupled.


It is most important that we recognise the special nature of this relationship; it is commonly understood that KE is "not conserved", but this is usually stated in the context of dissipative loss mechanisms, in which KE is simply transferred to ambient heat. Here, however, if the radially-moving masses are allowed to bounce in and out with perfect elasticity (ie. no frictional losses) then we observe the net system energy fluctuating, in this case, by 400%. This variable net energy is clearly not being radiated and re-adsorbed as it comes and goes (which in itself would challenge 2LoT); as a "loss", it is non-dissipative, and likewise, as a gain, it is ex-nihilo.

Precisely the kind of asymmetry we're looking for - non-dissipative loss in one direction, and non-2LoT violating in the gain direction. IOW a non-dissipative non-conservative system.

I have the growing hunch that MT 41 is all about MoI, rather than balance, and that the 'upper' amd 'lower' masses are more meaningfully regarded in terms of being inner and outer, ie. varying the MoI.

If this intrerpretation is valid, then it is interesting that the outer two masses are inducing cancelling forces via their interacting jacks and horizontal drive wheels, while the corresponding counter forces from the inner two are non-cancelling (jacks open)... IE. the 'counter-force' caused by extending our masses is a negative torque on the wheel. So, if these counterforces mutually self-cancel, but the ones from the inner weights accelerating the system, do not, then we have gain.


So with this in mind i spent some time today trying to find ways to cancel the negative torque caused by a radially-extending mass. No conclusive results yet but it's an angle. There's others yet to try. One way or another, Occam's razor suggests, to me at least, that Bessler must've found some way of freely or cheaply varying MoI...

[ME]

Sadly, this is just a case of deja vu, all over again.

Déjà vu
: the feeling that you have already experienced something that is actually happening for the first time
: something that has happened many times before : something that is very familiar

Perpetual
: continuing forever or for a very long time without stopping
: happening all the time or very often

But rotation doesn't let us vary mass, anymoreso than linear accelerations. So all we can vary is radius...

When two masses split-up (by some scissor mechanism) where one takes an outer radius and the other gets closer to the axle?

[Art]

.

Good one ME ! : )

[Fletcher]

But rotation doesn't let us vary mass, anymoreso than linear accelerations. So all we can vary is radius...

When two masses split-up (by some scissor mechanism) where one takes an outer radius and the other gets closer to the axle?

Yes, and that is where the magic must happen ME, IMO, if manipulating MoI is the answer to self sustaining motion.

I'm in two minds about finding the math first, then the mechanism, or whether it has to be the other way around. I'll take either ;7)

Take Bessler's MT145 (Roberval analogues) as an example - they show how equal weights on equal levers can be re-positioned to change lateral CoM position (no torque generated in a Roberval structure) - but they say nothing about where the extra energy came from to cause that lever displacement to change that CoM distribution, even though GPE is the same before and after shifting.

And, of course, that is the hard bit, IINM, that we all seek in a mechanism for gravity only wheels.

[Fletcher]

I should add that jim_mich purports to have solved this mechanical conundrum, but that gravity can be dispensed with.

[ME]

I'm in two minds about finding the math first, then the mechanism, or whether it has to be the other way around. I'll take either ;7)

Then you either work twice as fast, or get twice the distraction; whatever it takes to make it work, right? ;7)

The Roberval (wasn't it MT143?) is interesting. Put an axle between those levers, remove the block, and it rotates clockwise - so there is torque, only prevented by the counterforce of that block and ground.

When things are in balance then it shouldn't matter where things are put.
Perhaps when things are in balance on some disc and it still doesn't matter (for the sake of balance), then (perhaps) why not put one closer to the axle and change MoI and Angular stuff with it.

Do this symmetrically around the rim, and there we have Jim's theory of being gravity-independent.

The magic: Perhaps it doesn't get more complicated than this and it's already solved but we don't know or have it yet.
(Probably needs some tweaking, but still....)

Attached: This is a patched up version I currently have available (with see through MT136)

[Fletcher]

Hi ME .. one of the most interesting things about Bessler's MT143, (lol) IMO is the additional single set of weighted levers at the top of the drawing.

They seem entirely redundant and hardly show anymore detail than the regular sets seen below them.

Yet something was going thru his mind at the time when he felt compelled to draw them in.

FWIW, they outwardly appear longer and more massive, and not equal to the others at all.

[MrVibrating]

If MT143 was concerned with gravitational balance, the levers need to get lower in order to perform any work... yet they contra-rotate, so can only get lower if the whole mechanism is allowed to rotate, which just results in the usual keel with no obvious benefits to the Roberval or counter-geared levers pairs.

So if the Roberval and contra-rotation of the levers have any common purpose, MoI modulation seems a good bet..

Worth noting perhaps that activation of the levers or Roberval is a zero-sum game - both actions fully conservative, their outputs equal their inputs, so their cost of operation is negligible, and thus potentially decoupled from any resulting MoI asymmetry...

Like Marcello suggests, scissorjacks also seem ideally suited to paired radial excursions. However i beleive any such practical utility is also incidental to Bessler's use of them as a hieroglyph for inertia (the principle force their operation is subject to, due to their previously-noted sustained acceleration). Again, pulleys and tackle or a CVT etc. are mechanically simpler equivalents of the scissorjack - but it does make for an evocative and intuitive metaphor for the force manifested by their action... per the whistling top on the Toys page...


Speaking of which, this would imply that inertia increases towards the uper half of the Toys page - the upper hammer toy is subject to higher inertia, and the lower one is 'super-charged' by lower inertia. The long staff with the 'V' at the top must be a maypole-type affair - upper eyelets corresponding to outer radii, in concentric rings. Not sure about the chain thingy to the right, but there seems a thread of consistency there...

[MrVibrating]

If MT143 just rotates the Roberval, without tilting the system, then the trajectories of the swinging levers modifies their MoI asymmetrically - one inertia causing counter-torque, the other adding torque.

If we're looking for a cheap way of getting back out to the rim, without causing a full compliment of negative torque, then this is precisely the sort of principle we should be considering...