Computers?

[ssmyser]

My suggestion is this: "If IBM can program a computer specifically to beat the best 'Jeopardy' players, or beat Gary Kasparov at chess, why couldn't someone program a computer to find a solution to Bessler's wheel?"
A fast computer could probably model thousands of possibilities in seconds, where it might take you and I our entire lives. Just imagine a program like 'WM2D', (or maybe something a little more accurate), but able to run simulation after simulation until it finds a model with high probability.
My point is this: If IBM spent as much effort at this type of research as they did trying to beat Ken Jennings or Gary Kasparov we might already have a solution.
* For those who don't follow American television (including me), Jeopardy is a gameshow, and Ken Jennings was a contestant with an extremely high win rate. You probably already know who Gary Kasparov is, and probably have even heard of IBM's big brained child: 'Deep Blue'.
I've enjoyed building models (for the last two decades) just like most of you here, but I really think the future of this quest would best be handled by computers. I'm ready to be flamed now. Thank you for reading. -Steve

[rlortie]

'Jeopardy' players answer questions with already known answers. Chess is a game of strategy where rules apply as to what can be moved where.

What do you feed a computer for its initial search when we have neither of the above?

Ralph

[ssmyser]

Good point. I would start by feeding it all the mechanisms and wheel configurations found in MT, then let it arrange them until it (hopefully) hits on a winner. But thats only one starting point. Nothing about it would be easy.

[ssmyser]

I only used 'jeopardy' and chess as examples of what could be done if a major corporation would see fit to invest the same resources in a goal thats actually worthwhile. Spending millions of dollars and hundreds of hours to play chess seems like a waste (compared to this).

[ME]

Steve, I totally agree.

And this is what I attempted:
My approach was to naively let the computer find the optimal radius of some weight moving around an axle.
The first thing to define: "what's optimal?". The most obvious first answer is: some path which is overbalanced on a rotation average.
We could skip the velocity and power part, as those can be considered optimizations at some later stage. When the rotation average of the CoM is off-balanced then the average torque will also be off-balanced, which should effect in rotation.
When we simply consider the average for one single rotation for one single weight, then we can simply multiply this mechanism around so the wheel has a constant state of overbalance.
I think the bare minimum amount of multiples should be 3, or otherwise the mechanism needs to generate enough kinetic energy to overcome the counter-balance part. Theoretically we could just assume we have an infinite amount of those stacked around a common axle...

My first attempt started with some path of chaotic radius (per 5 degrees or so) and let the computer find an optimum track for a weight to follow which is: when rotating clockwise select the option where the CoM has the largest X-value.
The optimal path solution crawled towards what resembled a flywheel.

My second attempt allowed two rotations and one "jump" per rotation, between those jumps it just kept the radius. This jump could happen at any time during that rotation and in any direction, while jumping was free and instantaneous. Any mechanical or realistic implication for such jump was simply ignored.
So I think (not 100% sure yet) I covered a lot of possible mechanisms designed to bring a weight from one radius to the next, even when it's in some 3rd dimension.

The result is basically as posted in my topic: "Importance of raising weights". Summarized as: the CoM lies 90 degrees ahead of the jump-motion, thus: weight need to move up.

With this effort I did not find some revolutionary new discovery, but it proofs (at least to me) some (if not most) designs are a bit problematic.
Other members found some similar proofs or reasoning: height-for-width, rotate 90 degrees, count above and below the horizon, don't lose your GPE...
Of course I think 'my explanation' is slightly better, but who cares when it doesn't solve the issue.
So we need something 'new' or 'special' to make a wheel 'work', or perhaps some next time I could include velocities.

Optimization of known principles is doable and there are a lot of algorithms known.
We could program WM2D to randomly attach some objects to other objects. But we should be aware of the sheer amount of combinations one gets: a multiplication of the amount of objects (blocks, discs, springs, rods, rope, pivot,...), position, velocities (magnitude and dimensions), mass, friction...
There are also methods to somewhat handle those amounts of combinations and there are a lot of possibilities in finding yet unknown things of a certain order by applying just the right amount of chaos.
But there are limits.

So now I agree with Ralph: we don't yet have a principle to optimize.
And even when we found a principle it will be hard to find such thing via WM2D (or a sim alike) which should be accurate enough for a lot of situations and follows (hopefully or unfortunately) the known principles of Physics which includes known limitations on Perpetual Motion.

The only thing to proof is the mere possibility of PM and pinpoint the exception in Modern Physics.
Once found optimization shouldn't be much of a problem.
So how should we proceed before we let some cluster of supercomputers compute some perhaps impossible task for all eternity?

[eccentrically1]

Computers only compute what they are given. We can only program a computer with what we know, and we don't know the formulae for perpetual motion.

Even if we included energy - mass - crossing not just a system's boundary, but the boundary that separates it from what's called dark energy, that would still comply with CoE, after the system of dark energy was included in the formulae.

[spinner361]

I am a software developer. You need to start out with something and make adjustments automatically from there. Without a workable concept, it would take a miracle to make it work.

[ME]

I stumbled upon the next video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpsHRbh9CtA

As we try to wrap our heads around a mechanism of possible endless rotation we might find inspiration in some existing mechanical solution which is actually designed to calculate endless repetition.

This introduction to the series Albert Michelson’s Harmonic Analyzer celebrates a nineteenth century mechanical computer that performed Fourier analysis by using gears, springs and levers to calculate with sines and cosines—an astonishing feat in an age before electronic computers

[John doe]

Will a computer tell you why it does not work?

[WaltzCee]

. . .
As we try to wrap our heads around a mechanism of possible endless rotation we might find inspiration in some existing mechanical solution which is actually designed to calculate endless repetition.

IMNSHO, the most significant computer has yet to be built. It's going to be analog and it's going to resolve the equations proving something can come from nothing; that is to say creation is possible. I further speculate the equations are going to have the beauty, simplicity and usefulness of the one given us by Pythagoras. It is quite possible the actual mechanism will take its rightful place along side the simple machines of the past, the lever and wheel, the inclined plane et al.

[ME]

John doe: Yes.

WaltzCee: Maybe. But I expect at least some equation weirdness or mechanical complexity which is "normally" overlooked or considered inconsequential for at least 300 years by a significant amount of people (either capable or not) who invested serious time and effort...

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi ME,

your good at maths, so could you work this out for me. If most of PM seekers keep going over old ground without even knowing it (like my self), How many of these seekers have fully explored every combination of their designs, and mixed combinations? The answer is nobody could even think up every combination and its variables of numbers, position, timing, force vectors, to name but a few.

So how could the scientific community say that the energy laws have been empirically tested and PM is impossible. Before anybody can make a statement like that, surly they would have to Empirically test every combination, if not they are not telling the truth.

What the scientific community should say is this, given the small percent of the possible experiments we have done thus far, we are guessing PM is impossible.

As it stands now, the scientific community are telling lies, and by saying PM is impossible, on the grounds that they have done every experiment when they have not, they are saying Bessler was a Fraud, even though some of their respected founder members said Bessler was not, and made written statement to say they could not detect any kind of Fraud .

The old saying is, "Why lie unless you have something to hide"!



Edit, spelling + bold.

[John doe]

The scientific community is too busy to be bothered by such nonsense. It's much more productive to make black holes at the quantum level 😂

[MrVibrating]

Genetic algorithms might be of use, depending on how they were used.

The most straightforward approach would be to have a basic physics environment with inertia and gravity etc., with basic rules for assembling weighted linkages of various types (ie. radial, axial, and linear motions, and conversions between them), and then literally breed for an I/O asymmetry, hopefully leading to the most asymmetric parents producing progressively-more asymmetric offspring...

However this would assume that there's some threshold complexity beyond which an asymmetry is inevitable - that there's some kind of causal evolutionary path available that's amenable to such 'brute force' approaches..

The analogy to code-breaking seems apt, since the solution might require some kind of out-of-the-box innovation that simply can't be stumbled across by sheer blind luck - much as a one-time pad cipher can't be cracked by any amount of computing power.

Anyone interested in the topic might enjoy a play with the following applet:


http://rednuht.org/genetic_cars_2/

..where you can tweak parameter ranges to try stimulate the evolution of a more effective mechanism.

A conclusion that quickly becomes obvious is that this particular example is never going to 'discover' steam power, or anything of the sort.. But it might be possible to stumble across a potential N3 break in a rotating system.. If all Bessler's asymmetry requires is things like interfering inertias and gravity, springs and linkages etc., then a GA search might be in with a chance..

Would make a cool research project for anyone so inclined..

[ssmyser]

"NASA's New 'EM Drive' defies the laws of physics."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberl ... 9c0e2376e2

Finally some good ammunition to throw back at the skeptics.