Question to those who use simulation programs.

[eccentrically1]

Why do you think Ken's sim isn't PM?

[MrVibrating]

LOL... "error" would be far too generous.

Classic case of "not even wrong", i'm afraid. Total patho.




And i know a patho when i see one. Oh yes.

In my defence tho i can see when i'm going off tangent and reign it in a bit - Ken, he builds walls, layers of delusion, selection bias, magical thinking - it's all there, and it's impenetrable.


I've offered to review his sims, given advice.. not much else we can do but distance ourselves and warn against buying any of his BS for anything other than psychology studies..

[MrVibrating]

Re. the OP - like Fletch and Justsomeone say - WM just calculates the forces per N2 over whatever the given displacement, and displays the resulting KE as a function of ½mV².

For PE calcs, you have to take integrals of force times displacement, which are solved via a spreadsheet externally to the sim.

There seems no good reason WM shouldn't be able to do these internally - it's incomplete if you ask me, and i've considered even making an integration engine myself as a bolt-on script or summink - but as-is, WM just blithely calculates force as a function of mass times acceleration, and tots up the resulting KE scalar.


For most of the metrics i commonly use in my sims, they're all basic mechanical formulas i've either Googled or worked out myself - not default meters that come as presets - so for a current example consider the "OB torque times angle" meter in my current sim:

• i first calculate MoI as a function of mr²

• per N2, F=mA and equally, T=I*rad/s²

• so i just multiply that calculated MoI value, by the wheel's acceleration value..

• ..this gives the isntantaneous torque value..

• ..which is then plotted against the angle of the wheel as it rotates..

• that integral is then exported into Excel, a Reimann sum is applied (which looks like this "=(B1+B2)/2*(A2-A1)" - where column 'A' is angle and column 'B' is torque), and the resulting number is the energy or 'work' that's been done by that OB torque over that given angle of displacement

• all else being equal, that number would also be the rotational KE of that OB axis - unless some other factor was adding or removing energy, ie. via influence of some other force acting over that same displacement..


The more salient application of the OP's logic could be applied to B's wheels, and indeed the laws of physics themselves:

• if the mass, and thus MoI, of B's wheels had to remain constant over time, and their speed was also constant, and "kinetic energy" is simply half the inertia times the velocity squared, then there can be no such thing as "excess energy" - B's wheels could not have presented any evidence to the contrary, as any such a notion is inherently conflicted and oxymoronic..

• so if there's no such thing as "excess KE" - if any system can only ever have precisely the right amount of KE as given by its inertia and velocity, then the only form of "OU" that can exist - just in terms of logical self-consistency - is discounted PE; that is, paying less input energy than the resulting KE rise..

• one OBVIOUS and self-explanatory way this might arise is via an effective N3 violation: per ½mV² it costs just half a Joule to accelerate 1 kg to 1 m/s, but that cost increases by the square of velocity as more m/s's are added, due to N3; hence with an effective exception, we could instead repeatedly apply a 1 kg-m/s acceleration for ½ J each time... so after ten such cycles we'd've spent 5 J, yet we'd end up with 1 kg at 10 m/s, hence a KE of 50 J, and a 10x OU result

• so can WM render "effective N3 breaks"? Sure, why not - i demonstrate 'em all the time; apply a force between two inertias, one of which is also subject to some other, balancing, force, and as a result only the other inertia is able to accelerate

Watch the 'chicken run' demo on page 1 of my current thread - the ONLY thing that's been faked is the effective N3 break... everything else is just following the standard laws of physics, per CoE and CoM and the three laws etc. - all those gains being displayed are the actual result of an effective N3 break - a failure to maintain equal opposite momenta, and thus constant net momentum over time, resulting in a divergent inertial frame and 'ckin crazy KE 'gains' (tho in reality this IS a misnomer as explained already; it's actually discounted PE, not 'excess KE')..

"Gravity" in WM is just the same as in real-life - an ambient, constant acceleration applied to all bodies irrespective of mass.

Apply a vertical 9.81 N force between two 1kg masses and the upper one just hangs in mid air whilst the lower one plummets at 2G..

..but play around and you'll see that you could make that lower mass anything at all.. keeping the internally-applied force to 9.81 N, the upper 1 kg will always hover motionless whilst only the descent rate of the lower weight is affected by its mass.. whether it's 0.1 kg or 100 kg..


My point is that the results you get from WM are the same as those you get from pen and paper... WM's essentially a calculator, or a tool for obtaining the data you wanna calculate.

Fundamentally, PE to KE symmetry can only be broken by an effective N3 symmetry break, at which point PE and KE are relative to different FoR's, either at different speeds or subject to different dimensions, and the energy difference evolves as a consequence of those different respective displacements in their respective fields..



All we need to know is that B's wheels were validated by Leibniz, the godfather of CoE, as well as 's Gravesande (who did the brass balls / clay bed experiments proving that the 'work potential' of the vis viva squared with velocity / GPE height - thus another original expert on CoE, yet who nonetheless spent the rest of his life convinced some kind of gravity wheel must be possible).

They had every outwards appearance of the classic "gravity wheel", even tho we know categorically that closed-loop trajectories thru static fields yield zero net energy; that gravitational asymmetries are definitively impossible..

..but then that's our leaping-off point, not the last word. There can be no paradoxes, hence there's a simple coherent solution that follows from basic mechanics.


All of mechanics reduces to just two types of interaction - inertial interactions, and gravitational ones; in either case, elasticity can take any value between '0' and '1'. Everything else - springs, friction, power conversion / gearing / leverage, hydraulics and pneumatics etc. etc., are just variations on those two fundamental types of interaction.

WM does both - inertial interactions, and gravitational interactions... not just one or the other, but both together - at the same time!.

You create the telemetry, from formulas you look up or make up yourself, you calculate the integrals, it calculates the vectors and scalars from whatever equations you give it; you can build up your system's net KE picture by individually calculating all KE's from first principles, and compare that against WM's calculation of net KE - if your maths are right, they'll always match 1:1. I cross-reference like this in most if not all my serious sims - sometimes calculating rotKE and radKE independently from MoI and velocity, sometimes deriving those quantities by inverting the energy equations using WM's "kinetic()" function (so for instance you can calculate your MoI in reverse, from only knowing the rotKE and velocity, and cross-reference this with mr² etc. etc.)

WM don't know shit - it's just a dumb calculator. It follows the three laws, just as B's wheels must've..

[eccentrically1]

LOL... "error" would be far too generous.

Classic case of "not even wrong", i'm afraid. Total patho.




And i know a patho when i see one. Oh yes.

In my defence tho i can see when i'm going off tangent and reign it in a bit - Ken, he builds walls, layers of delusion, selection bias, magical thinking - it's all there, and it's impenetrable.


I've offered to review his sims, given advice.. not much else we can do but distance ourselves and warn against buying any of his BS for anything other than psychology studies..

Yes he is obsessed for sure. I don't see much difference between him and any other members, other than he says he found the solution if only someone would build the damn thing for him, LOL.

I don't think a program that accurately shows mechanics can show Bessler's wheel mechanics unless you program it with those exact mechanics. And, if the laws of thermodynamics are right (I know they are) and Newton's laws are right (I know they are) then the wm2d program should show a wheel that runs out of "gas". So far so good.

[justsomeone]

Sorry Ecc1. But even with wm2d, an ounce here or there wouldn't make a lick of difference. 😉

[Fletcher]

justsomeone hits it out of the park :7) IMO it comes down to can you design a mechanical wheel on the earths surface that is constantly OOB. Purely an issue of the right mechanics to do so. If so it should work just as well in WM as the real thing.

The sim needs forces (m x a). And all wheel designs have equal positive and negative torques so no continuous turny. But if you can design one to have asymmetric torque (unequal forces) the sim won't need a force added to keep the turning going. That's my best guess atm.

[johannesbender]

by using tools that enable me to develope my new ideas in to something visual for analasys ,without building .

they enabled me in the last couple of days to form a proper "blueprint" of what is required at minimum for me ,
to have constant positive torque, plus excess torque.

they helped me see and grasp where the gains need to be coming from.

i dont think i would have even had the ability ,to form a proper picture of this in my mind alone ,
without using the advantages of such tools.

in the end as best as my understanding goes so far , this appears ,
to dump in to acceleration and momentum , for all masses involved.

accordingly to my calculations thus far , each rotation produces a total of these excess gains added up, which ,
i think dumps in to the masses of the whole thing ,
so the next rotation then being able to perform stronger and easier.

anyway , tools have so many options and uses ,that it all depends on how you use them.

we have the advantage of the modern age,
we should make use of it to bring the time frame of analasis and research down.

but everyone to his own though.

[Robinhood46]

i dont think i would have even had the ability ,to form a proper picture of this in my mind alone ,
without using the advantages of such tools.

I'll second that.
My problem is i can't get the hang of those stupid programmes that don't do what i want and it takes away all the fun.
Building real wheels is much more time consuming and cost more. They do however (i think) give us a better understanding of what is actually going on.
The visualising part is very important because often what we think will happen and what actually happens is not the same and sometimes what we visualise is completely impossible to materialise. Sims have advantages but they are limited IMO.

[johannesbender]

they serve very well as precursor to physical experiments.

[Georg Künstler]

The SIM Programms can handle Problem.

Depending on the SIM Program you will use, you will get different error Messages.

Some Sim Programs will detect that the oscillation will be self amplified and will stop, because the continuous Input energy from gravity will destroy the model.
Out of Control. Limit Exceeded, out of range, Swinging will get unstable etc.

So before you try to rediscover Besslers Wheel, try to build an oscillator with 2 weights and a spring which is self amplifying.
Coupled oscillation.

When this is solved, try to Limit this self amplified oscillation in a specific range.

After this you will see that you have an positive Feedback Loop which must be regulated.
This is classic control Technology.
The Feedback has to be reduced from step to step, until the Wheel is running on its natural frequency.

All of Besslers Wheels are pre-loaded GRAVity Systems.
SO THEY HAVE IN THE WHEEL ENERGY ALREADY.
They work because you Change the energy asymmetrical.

[eccentrically1]

Sorry Ecc1. But even with wm2d, an ounce here or there wouldn't make a lick of difference. 😉

Should that be rephrased?
If you (correctly) programmed it with the same mechanisms, then it will run out of gas (as his wheel did on one occasion). So you'd think oh well, another non runner, even though you had his wheel (!) If you programmed it incorrectly with the same mechanisms, it would be a runner, but after you built it, it would run out of gas. Another non runner.

What if his wheels were drawing energy from the environment (for the 54 day test: I don't think the 1/2 hour demos would have required environmental energy)? Can wm2d model environmental thermal transfer?

justsomeone hits it out of the park :7) IMO it comes down to can you design a mechanical wheel on the earths surface that is constantly OOB. Purely an issue of the right mechanics to do so. If so it should work just as well in WM as the real thing.

The sim needs forces (m x a). And all wheel designs have equal positive and negative torques so no continuous turny. But if you can design one to have asymmetric torque (unequal forces) the sim won't need a force added to keep the turning going. That's my best guess atm.

Perpetual unequal forces require perpetual energy transformation. According to the laws, If wm2d is programmed correctly all wheels would be non runners. All the internal useable energy (in any form) is eventually transformed into nonuseable energy.

[Georg Künstler]

eccentrically1 wrote:

Perpetual unequal forces require perpetual energy transformation. According to the laws, If wm2d is programmed correctly all wheels would be non runners. All the internal useable energy (in any form) is eventually transformed into nonuseable energy.

If you have the right application, the mechanical System will self accelerate.
I agree that we require a perpetual energy Transformation.
Therefore we have to preload the Besslerwheel with Gravity energy.

In the one directional Wheel you have the complete weight of the connected weights on one side. All is going around in one direction.

In the bi-directional Wheel you activate the imbalance, the direction of rotation is pre-embossed.

[Robinhood46]

Therefore we have to preload the Besslerwheel with Gravity energy.

Do you mean; put a weight in it somewhere that isn't at the bottom or does it mean something else?

[ovaron]

justsomeone hits it out of the park :7) IMO it comes down to can you design a mechanical wheel on the earths surface that is constantly OOB. Purely an issue of the right mechanics to do so. If so it should work just as well in WM as the real thing.

The sim needs forces (m x a). And all wheel designs have equal positive and negative torques so no continuous turny. But if you can design one to have asymmetric torque (unequal forces) the sim won't need a force added to keep the turning going. That's my best guess atm.

As soon as you could design a wheel with constant asymmetrical torque, you would gain energy from nothing in the simulation. But this is only possible in a simulation if it is not programmed according to the known physical laws or if it is faulty, because the released energy must come from somewhere, at least according to the prevailing doctrine.

[Robinhood46]

In my opinion, if Bessler's wheel proves the fundamental laws to be incorrect (which i don't think is the case) the sims will not be able to do it and if bessler's wheel proves that we have been incorrectly applying the laws then the sims will work.
Just my two bob worth.