Question to those who use simulation programs.

[ovaron]

How can one imagine to rediscover successfully the Bessler wheel by a simulation program? Ken for example claims in his book that he has found the right setup with simulation. He believes that the energy released by the wheel can be explained by a loss of mass of the weights, but this is certainly not considered in his simulation program. Consequently, his simulation must be faulty. To my understanding, any simulation can only show what has been programmed. Programmed can only be what is known so far. According to today's "science", the Bessler wheel can not work. A permanent imbalance is not possible without a supply of energy. So how can one imagine to be successful with a simulation program? I just can't understand it. Every "working" model of a simulation means that the simulation is faulty. So what use is a simulation that is programmed according to current scientific knowledge?
It is much more likely that the correct setup cannot be recognized at all. So what is the benefit of a simulation?

[Fletcher]

Simulations like WM2D mimic real world physics, in the form of mechanical actions. They use mass, inertia, elasticity of impacts, and forces etc. IOW's, Newton's Laws dictate how the simulations will present, what they can predict.

Mans Laws of Physics and Mechanics are a sub-set of the Laws of Nature, which was the environment that B's. wheel operated in. Clearly, because Newton's Laws, from which CoE is distilled (IIRC), say continuous overbalancing of a mechanical arrangement that outputs energy to do Work is impossible. That's according to mans Laws of Physics and Mechanics, but not necessarily according to Natures Laws.

B. said this about his wheels ..

... What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: 'Now I understand!'" - AP pg 342

He is not explaining where the energy is coming from to do external Work (the source), and sustain its rotation. Macro Physics can't even do that so why would he be able to ? The energy source has to remain unknown for now.

He is saying that he has a 'proper method of mechanical application'. He built this mechanical application in the real world from mechanical knowledge he had gained in his lifetime. And so WM2D should also be able to duplicate this mechanics and the way he applied it, once found.

The result will be a wheel that has continuous imbalance, as as I like to call it 'Excess Torque' i.e. asymmetric torque which leads to an accumulation of wheel Momentum.

The sim must turn and accelerate because it has 'continuous imbalance' of CoG/CoM and Torque (force).

If the proper method of mechanical application can be deduced then the sim can replicate the counter-intuitive action. Counter-intuitive to mans imagination and counter-intuitive to mans Laws of Physics and Mechanics, as we know them. But not to Natures Laws. IMO !

[Wubbly]

So what is the benefit of a simulation?

As my grand pappy used to say, "Son, ya gotta do something ta kill time before ya die."

[agor95]

Hello Ovaron

You have put forward a compelling logical reason for me to give up :-)

Questions & Statements:-

1. How can one imagine to rediscover successfully the Bessler wheel by a simulation program?

One can but try.

2. Ken for example claims in his book that he has found the right setup with simulation.
He believes that the energy released by the wheel can be explained by
a loss of mass of the weights, but this is certainly not considered in
his simulation program. Consequently, his simulation must be faulty.

Have not read the book and this is not really a question.

However a mass can loose weight and gain it again, not mass.

3. Programmed can only be what is known so far. According to today's "science",
the Bessler wheel can not work.

Well actually a program can configure itself thus searching out options beyond it's
initial programming.

4. A permanent imbalance is not possible without a supply of energy.

Well there is a possible out of phase approach using the energy of acceleration.

5. I just can't understand it.

... Imagine ...

Every "working" model of a simulation means that the simulation is faulty.

Agreed they are approximate to reality therefore approximately faulty.

So what use is a simulation that is programmed according to
current scientific knowledge?

I will stick with answer for question 3.

5. So how can one imagine to be successful with a simulation program?

I will stick with answer for question 1

6. It is much more likely that the correct setup cannot be recognized at all.
So what is the benefit of a simulation?

Agreed there are more 'not correct setups' than 'correct setups'.
I can recognize that all to well.

P.S. Are you skilled on the subject?

All the Best

[justsomeone]

I am a builder but also believe a computer program will be able to duplicate exactly what was happening inside Bessler's wheel once the correct design is disclosed. My opinion, there is no magical energy source, just a clever way of using gravity , Centrifugal force, momentum... to achieve an overballanced wheel always seeking its point of rest but never finding it. The computer program will be able to duplicate the actual build or vice versa.

[agor95]

You have put forward a compelling logical reason for me to give up :-)

OK I will not give up :-)

[ovaron]

Somehow I got a block in my thinking. Isn't it true that a simulation program is only a computational program according to given scientific laws? If this is the case, which I assume, such a program cannot possibly find the solution, because according to today's scientific knowledge, no energy can be gained from gravity, nor is there any other known source of energy that could drive the wheel. Ergo, so my conclusion, such a program cannot find the solution at all. Am I wrong? (I have a copy of the WM2D myself, but I can only use it rudimentarily and don't really use it anymore, because I assume that the solution cannot be found with it).
Isn't it the case that the "laws of nature" set up by humans do not necessarily always have to apply in this way? If this is the case, isn't a man-made simulation program inferior to real nature?

[ovaron]

@fletcher - "The energy source has to remain unknown for now."

But if the energy source is unknown, a simulaion program can't find the solution. Where's my error in thinking?

[justsomeone]

Wm2d would not automatically tell the program to stop the wheel from revolving because it is considered impossible. I assume it would just function exactly as all the mechanisms would in real life. Do not eliminate computer programs from being able to duplicate Bessler's wheel. Again, this is from a non user but only my opinion.

[ovaron]

@agor95 - "Well actually a program can configure itself thus searching out options beyond it's initial programming."

That sounds like artificial intelligence. Maybe an AI can find the solution if you pretend that there IS a solution.

[Fletcher]

@fletcher - "The energy source has to remain unknown for now."

But if the energy source is unknown, a simulaion program can't find the solution. Where's my error in thinking?

ovaron ..

Wm2d would not automatically tell the program to stop the wheel from revolving because it is considered impossible. I assume it would just function exactly as all the mechanisms would in real life. Do not eliminate computer programs from being able to duplicate Bessler's wheel. Again, this is from a non user but only my opinion.

justsomeone is absolutely correct imo. I don't think it can be put any plainer.

If the program were top down driven you'd be right. Can't perform that function coz it violates the prime directive i.e. do not violate CoE/Momentum etc. Noether's symmetries. LoTD's. Do not go there !

But it ain't like that. It's a simple bottom up kinematic computational program that builds things (basic building blocks) like mechanical actions. Then you run the sim to see what happens when it interacts with other things. The result is the result, just like real world. It ain't forward looking or thinking. It doesn't imagine or predict what will happen before it happens like we do. It knows the past but not the future coz it has to run the iterations to build that picture. Then its too late ;7)

ETA : Permanently OOB is permanently OOB. That's the secret mechanism and method of application. That makes up B's. True Mechanical PM Principle. It's simply Torque imbalanced and the program can't tell that in advance. So it doesn't need any simulated energy, just simulated gravity force.

And yes, I know the Physics and Math arguments.

[eccentrically1]

There is the possibility ( most likely imo) that wm2d couldn’t duplicate Bessler’s wheel mechanism because it might be outside the parameters of the program - beyond its limitations.

[johannesbender]

So what is the benefit of a simulation?

to simulate .

why use it ?
the same reason you doodle on a piece of paper ,but to determine fast as possible if things might appear and function as thought .

fast prototyping , and testing interactions that arent easy to predict in imagination.

its a fast easy , tool , what you do with that tool is what makes it good or bad .

the human mind cannot solve every physics interaction of a concept accurately per small increment of time , in a managable time frame .

have you ever seen PM happen in real life , even with things as unpredictable as explosions hurling mass around in all kinds of shapes and motions and collisions ?

if not , then there cannot be simple laws at fault , it must rather obey them but accomplish the end result differently.

life has the same beginning and end for all, it is the series of events and choices along the way that determines the outcome.

[agor95]

That sounds like artificial intelligence. Maybe an AI can find the solution if you pretend that there IS a solution.

Well the AI algorithm is finding the solution.

I am trying too pretend there IS a solution to the electric bill.

All The Best

[agor95]

Delete - Duplicate Text

The answer for question 4 could use some three phase electric generation skilled persons.

Cheers