Possible "it"?!

[PLMKRN]

Here is link to one "very strange" simulation output, from my point of view.
I got this kind of information output with one working setup in simulation. Showed numbers are from one "working" weight only. There is visible some small speed decrease at some points, but after short time it will accelerate again little. All this repeat itself again and again. This mean setup have self speed regulating virtue and it work´s between some specific rpm-s. Simulation have run now more then weeks without any speed loss. So there was no point at the moment to make longer video from that.
Simulation starts itself from standstill, no need to push. I just hit "Start" and real setup will take after short time very good shape for imbalance wheel. From start time to final speed there is seen clearly - "herd of fat, lazy, plump horses wanders aimlessly...", but not only ..:)
Can someone "translate" or make some short comment from showing numbers, what exactly there is shown!?
Can be this "it"?


https://youtu.be/y5A1lmiaWEA

[jim_mich]

I would guess that you have friction set to zero and the initial start-up conditions are unbalanced. So the mechanisms self-starts and eventually its oscillations settle into a fixed pattern. Then, because it is a computer simulation, during each step there are tiny mathematical rounding of values being done. Each step may add a tiny bit of motion due to rounding of values, and over time the motion grows. I've seen it happen many time with simulations. In the real world there is always friction, which act like a load. So in a simulation, you need to add some friction or add a small load. If a small load is added, I would expect the simulation to start out like you show and then slow down as the load drains the energy from the mechanism. If the mechanism replenishes the energy of the load, then you can tweak the load until it balances against the mechanism's output, which will give you an idea of the system's ability to do sustained work.

[jim_mich]

Posted last October...

Put a motor on the wheel. Set the motor to rotate in reverse at some low torque, with a time delay to start the motor after the wheel is rotating forward. The motor will act like a load on the wheel. If the wheel can produce enough forward torque to overcome the reverse torque load of the motor, then it shows that your mechanism is producing a positive output.

But be warned, the underlying programing of WM2D is based upon conservation of energy. Thus it (in theory) will never show a positive output for a PM wheel. Some people dispute this and think it would show positive output for a real PM wheel

WM2D is a good tool for figuring out a mechanical arrangement, but not for proving if an idea is PM.

Note that other brands of computer programs function much like WM2D.

[WaltzCee]

Please Let me Know Pro Nata

OK. Cool video but I can't read the scales of the different charts.

[ME]

Here is link to one "very strange" simulation output, from my point of view.
I got this kind of information output with one working setup in simulation. Showed numbers are from one "working" weight only. There is visible some small speed decrease at some points, but after short time it will accelerate again little. All this repeat itself again and again.
...
Can be this "it"?

You'll only know for sure when you build it for real.

Numbers (or graphs) alone don't say much, it looks like some chaotic oscillator/pendulum on a wheel finding some resonance: That's a good indicator! (But you already told us: "one 'working weight' on a wheel" )
Although I was expecting things to equalize a bit sooner.

As Jim suggests, added mathematical errors/round-offs/glitches/SW-bugs could be problematic.
But added physical redirection "errors"/forces are a win.
The question: which one is it?

So you need to figure out what you might have overlooked.

Try to add as much friction as you can until it stops, lower any value toward your current zero to make it work again: as such you're basically searching the friction value.
Initially it doesn't really matter what kind of value that might be as long as it's not 0*, but in the end it's hopefully higher than theoretical values for preferred material. When it's lower, then consider using another kind of material.
Perhaps build it anyway, just to see and feel how it operates in real-life.

But congratulations for having a self-running sim!
Besides bugs/exploits it's not easy to even get up to that point.


*) Added:
Zero-friction is often not a problem in simulation, as long as it's about balance. Your (I guess) pendulum is being swept-up by the motion of the wheel: In that case there will be some timing issues which are extremely delicate and easily influenced by the slightest form of friction.

[PLMKRN]

Thanks for suggestions!

I believe that trough video can impart lot of more information and understanding, then with just some text and still picture. So ..

From First Video given feedback I made some new tests and improvements so here is Second video.
As suggested, there is taken now to this equation also resistance and I show also actual test itself.
All you see there is not ANIMATION, at any part, at any time.

There I have covered actual mechanism with one circle. This circle mass is set to 0,1 gram, to eliminate flywheel effect, so this is just like paper-cover. But, I left visible one weight "tracker" - red dot. So there was able to see some evidence about one weights move and his "imbalance path" in different situations. If watch closely to right edge of this covering circle, there is also seen other weights passes by ... in some points. They all travel same path with red dot!

In this setup, mechanism running in the top of the cart, with connection to one 20 teeth gear. Witch connects trough 3 pieces of 128 teeth gear and 52 tooth gear to front wheel - 128 teeth gear.
Simulation starts from flat ground - 0". This is at the moment for several reasons:
Firstly to show weight´s "good imbalanced path", with red dot.
Taken from First reason, to show or prove that there is no any motors (maybe with some special weight path) related in this setup. As here weight path always changes when there is some new task to wheel.
Thirdly, if start mechanism from 0 to uphill. Then between about 0,5"...3" to uphill, mechanism will start to move. But then with not so great speed and there will be not visible weight´s "good ideal path", at any point.
Between about 3"...7" wheel goes very...very slowly. About over 8" it would not move, weights just wagging slowly.

Simulation video with some external motor resistant is in progress.

I also think that somewhere must be some error here. BUT ... ah, I think this information is enough for today.

Any question, comment, suggestion are welcome.

https://youtu.be/_Vi3aStImug

[agor95]

Thank you for your inspiration.

This is why this site is so important.

[Fletcher]

Hi P .. what is the simulation program you are using ? I don't think you have said what it is yet.

And .. can you explain to yourself satisfactorily what the principle of excess positive torque is that is generated by your mechanism(s) ?

And .. why in your mind the principle violates Newtonian physics ?

Did you plan this build first and then build the simulation to exploit your principle or were you experimenting with the simulation software and noticed a bias that you then turned into a self moving cart ?

Thanks. It will help us understand a bit better.

[ME]

PLMKRN,

At a certain point things need to go beyond simulation, otherwise you'll only optimize for simulation purposes instead of preparing yourself for a real build.
Just make sure you try to cover a lot of annoying situations before you try a build: you have a simulation, so use it - it's faster.

For example, it's possible a real lever will wobble in it's socket. You could try to hang some small weight somewhere like Christmas balls (or something like that). I imagine those levers hang on springs: what springs lie in your drawer and is your simulation able to handle those.
With those kinds of 'abuse' or tests you could save a lot of annoyance because of some accuracy requirement on the real build.

I guess this is as much of advise as I can give for what i'm able to see.
Good luck.

[agor95]

@PLMKRN

The orbital path looks good in the translation frame of reference.

Could you look at bouncing the path at the bottom at an incident angle
of 45 degrees.

In the V Python free software there is an example on Star orbitals / gravity
interactions. This has a Binary Orbit flavor.


Regards

[PLMKRN]

Thanks for advices.

" ...why in your mind the principle violates Newtonian physics ? "

... I have not sayed that "it" violates any carbon based life written law ..., who can also think by it self ..., that they are "masters of the universe"!
They have made also laws for traffic and other regulations for almost every aspect of life. But strangelly, there is happening "accidents" or "acts of god" all the time... Why?
I have not revealed here all actual information that I got with this setup. Just scratching the surface here, at the moment.

As I said from previous comment: "I also think that somewhere must be some error here...". But where?
Because of that, there is my First Video. It is just one small step, can here someone to "translate" what I got, and what there needed to do, to exclude error... "this is for test purpose"...
From that reason Second Video, witch will not be the last one.

I know that there is lot of scam out there and here is hard to differentiate from others, with my claim.
But I try here, with peace by peace to reveal all, what is behind of my or then Bessler discovery.
In one thing I´am more then sure here now, no one have reached so close to real truth as here soon will come!
Maybe there is, but we do not know this.... Jet.

"... Did you plan this build first and then build the simulation to exploit ... ? "

I have used firstly only simulator software to experiment new ideas. As only with this way is possible to test those just in minutes, plus there can do changes very quicly.
I have spended lot of time to study "this kind" of setup. Achieving this was not simple and quick task at all.
There is some under hundred simulation builds before achieving this kind of good imbalace with this setup only. From that I have learned, with those every little step, why and how "it" works.
From now, I have replicated this also with different other "wheel" sizes and ...
As strange that it may sound here - all them work same way. Where all those wheels weights replicate same path, as there is seen in my Second and future videos.
I do not found "this setup" from Bessler clues and codes, when I search answer to this question. All foundings was based on my own tests and remarkings.

"...can you explain to yourself satisfactorily what the principle of excess positive torque is that is generated by your mechanism(s) ?"

Little bit about this design, where is not something new or extraordinary to any Bessler enthusiast.
ONE Mechanism is like special Double pendulum with spring.
Totaly I have used four, this kind of pendulums mechanisms in this setup.
So there is 8 weights and four springs in wheel, as there may call it "a wheel".
In setup have used symbiose of roberval balance and kiiking/lever acting ideas.
Where look to Second Video, there is left side acting allways like roberval balance and right one like lever/kiiking.
"Working" weights are always in change, depending on angles and sides, left roberval or right kiiking, where they are.
All parts measure scales, between each other is very important here.
Important angels here are not twelve, three, six or nine o´clock as most there have thinked. Not taken here directly or visually.


But MAIN thing why I´am here at the moment is - why my setup and some Bessler hints like some drawings, letters, clues and verses are more then 99% similar!?!
If you do not belive me. Then just wait my next videos.

As previously All questions are welcome.

[Fletcher]

If Bessler was not a fraud, then one day I believe someone with the determination, intelligence, and most importantly the ability to focus on the problem for long enough and intensely enough, will eventually find the solution he used (or something similar using the same elements), and reveal it to the world again.

I hope that is you PLMKRN.

Personally, I could never find the right configuration of the Roberval Balance to allow a total reset of GPE in a wheel and to give that abundance of positive torque required to have the wheel accelerate until it stabilized rpm. Mine always lost some GPE, no matter what I tried and I put a fair bit of effort into it, but obviously not enough.

If you have found the way with the addition of kiiking elements then full kudos to you.

It is not a matter of believing you for me. I tend to just follow the evidence. If you are correct and it is not a simulation glitch, and the idea can be demonstrated to work in a real world experiment of the main parts (N.B. often a standalone reciprocating device can be designed for a Proof of Principle) then belief will automatically follow.

I make the point about reciprocating v's circular wheel formats because linear motion can often be turned into circular and so forth, and sometimes it is easier to build a reciprocating device to test one mechanism.

Anyways, I look forward to your next video. Very best of luck.

[ME]

But I try here, with peace by peace to reveal all, what is behind of my or then Bessler discovery.

Cool, I'll watch.
Are you still suspecting possible errors?

[WaltzCee]

Personally, I could never find the right configuration of the Roberval Balance to allow a total reset of GPE in a wheel and to give that abundance of positive torque required to have the wheel accelerate until it stabilized rpm.

This simulation was a variation of the Roberval.



If a simulator rounds up/down according to the rules of rounding and is set to a high number of iterations, then on average the rounding shouldn't be an issue. It should average out.

Important angels here are not twelve, three, six or nine o´clock as most there have thinked. Not taken here directly or visually.

I think the red is a wash and the green is where work can happen. It would probably have to be pushed to get it started.

[PLMKRN]

Here is my third video.

I bring here out more weights, so there is visible four of them now.
Measure scale to compare - 100 Newtons is approx. 10 kg.
Wheel size is 26m.

At start there is clearly seen that those weights "wanders aimlessly".
Taken from John Collins translation "large herd of fat, lazy, plump horses wanders aimlessly."
Actually looks more like horses stoop their head there. Where one head is visible one weight.


"... Are you still suspecting possible errors?"

Yes, there is always room for some errors here, specially in this field.
I have always been, trough my life, rather skeptic then cynic.
But just those "after findigs" here, have shoot off my pants more then severalt times now and... I start to turn from known sceptic to "some kind" of beliver.
If "it" have been just a rotator, without any positive output. There was no any question that there is problem in setup or program.

Talking about degrees ...

There is no any exact degrees from what starting point power is coming. There is degree ranges, where roberwal will change to lever and vice versa.
All because ...
1. All is in constant and smooth change.
2. System have self speed stabilization capability. This mean those working angels are always changed little bit. Depending, there need to accelerate or deaccelarate.
3. There is also centrifugal force envoleved with rotation. So there is no hard to get working weights to most upper work position. This will achived after certain rotaional speed very easyli.
Rather problem here is how to get workings weight from bottom or outer perimeter to center again.
Because of that, there is also springs envolved. They help to pull weights to center again at roberval side ...

https://youtu.be/zbFqPK_4_zA