Math

[Da Ewe]

amazing what can be done with video looping.

What a clown show.

And what you've built works better, right? People like you and ab hammer is why America sucks.
And everyone will know that a successful build will let me have a life in another country. Americans
just can't get along with anyone unless they want to cause problems.
I mean for how many years you've been a well respected member in this forum you can't understand
why the build in that video had over 90º of rotation. And when YouTube looped the video it shows
what that design is capable of. But it doesn't matter to a well respected forum member who is a "real"
American.
If you understood math then you'd know why that design rotated but as I've mentioned before, you can't
know what you haven't learned. Since you can't understand high school math it'd be a waste of my time
trying to explain anything to you.

[JUBAT]

Here's an idea for you Da Ewe - build a working wheel.

Why do you put greater emphasis on building failures instead of building working wheels? I see very little difference between someone who doesn't try to build anything and someone who builds failed wheels. I mean, isn't the guy who doesn't build a bit smarter because he's saving time and money? Certainly the end result is exactly the same.

If you built a working wheel, I would accept all of your told-you-so accusations. At this point though, you talk like others are to blame for your failed wheels and that you should somehow be lauded and praised for your superiour knowledge that has resulted in failure after failure.

All your problems, all the heckling, and all the stories you come up with as to the reasons why your wheels haven't worked could all be done away with in one simple move: build a working wheel

Once you do that, nobody will have a leg to stand on. Until then, you've got no place spouting off like you do. At the very least, you could help your case by just humbly building your wheel in silence. It really looks dumb (clown show per WC) when you carry on like you do and don't have a working wheel. Building your next wheel does not a successful wheel make. You know AFTER the build whether it will truly revolve or not.

Sorry I gotta go - my disabled Norwegian emigration attorney just called. Seems someone rolled a big wooden wheel into the side of my Shriner's circus car. Apparently it rolled downhill - beings it was stuck on repeat and all...

[Tarsier79]

mean for how many years you've been a well respected member in this forum you can't understand
why the build in that video had over 90º of rotation.

I know why...... Poor build quality leading to imbalance. COM moves downwards. (The arms are crooked for a start)

With math, it can be as simple as f(x) = ∫ x cosø

No it can't. Not once have you calculated the cost of lifting weight radially.

....greased bearings will fix it.... Why didn't I think of that.

[WaltzCee]

Quote from: JLindgaard on 18/10/2022 22:41:26
And yet no one in here has considered the math when it was posted.


I actually noticed that. Your math is wrong of course, but nobody seems to say where. It is admittedly difficult since I cannot tell what the gadget is supposed to do just from the picture. In particular, some mechanism up top is suppose to suddenly rotate that weight to the top by magic. It isn't clear what mechanism does that from just one picture.

I think your attempt at the mathematics was this in post 2.

Quote from: JLindgaard on 18/10/2022 03:32:12
Basically if a 100kg weight is 1m from its axis, then with 6 weights providing power, that would be the equivalent force of 420kg @ 1m.


The picture seems to show 16 weights, 7 each on left and right and the other two top and bottom. That's ~16000 newtons of force. 6 such masses would provide ~6000 n of force, not 420 kg, which isn't even a unit of force.
Perhaps you're speaking of torque, in which case you should do the computation in torque. I don't see it. 600 kg of mass held at a meter from an axis provides ~6000 n•m of torque. I'm assuming ~10 m/sec² of gravity here just to keep the numbers round.

Quote
If the frame has a 2.5m radius it will accelerate at 1/2 the velocity as a frame with a 5m radius.


Neither accelerates at all since it is presumed fixed and just rotating in place. Perhaps you're confusing velocity with angular velocity, in which case the statement is simply wrong. A smaller wheel will undergo larger angular acceleration given identical tangential force applied at the edge.
This is your mathematics backing? You choose to display very little knowledge of basic physics.

Quote
The question is if 420kg of force


kg is not a unit of force. Force doesn't cause rotation. Torque does.

Quote
could rotate a 100kg weight to a height of 2m while rotating the wheel?


A mass is not rotated to a height. It is raised to a height, which consumes energy equal to force•height. You've not done any energy calculation that I've seen, but a 100 kg mass raised 2m would require ~2000 joules. Rotation has nothing to do with it.

Quote
To rotate the 100kg upward would take 62kg of force over a 2m distance.


Wrong again. It would require 1000n force over 2m vertical displacement. How are you making up all these numbers that don't even have the correct units?

You need to actually do correct, mathematics. You seem to be attempting to describe how the weights on the right exert more torque on the wheel than do the weights on the left, but you do no torque calculations, so you haven't really verified the design at all. Yes, there is a net torque there, but the excess is needed to flip up each weight at the top of the wheel, mechanism for which is left completely unexplained.

So instead of claiming you've done the mathematics, actually post some real analysis, describing all the parts, and using actual units of torque and force and energy and such.
You won't of course since you seem reluctant to display even middle-school physics knowledge.
« Last Edit: 18/10/2022 23:25:26 by Halc »

[WaltzCee]

EDIT: One of the other moderators said that you will be allowed back on the forums when you show a working model of your device, as witnessed and confirmed by Utrecht University. Send an E-mail when that happens.

[Da Ewe]

@All, This video shows the difference tapered roller bearings make. Because the rollers actually ride on the race
and nuts have to be tightened to seat the bearing in the race, a little play allows for the rollers above the axle to be
the only bearings making contact. This decreases resistance and allows for an actual rolling movement.
https://youtu.be/Xb0ycY4cogg

And when I get this build working (I have to finish it first I know but I like the math) then I can go to Romania and
work with someone there on their invention. Of course my science experiment will show that I understand science.
And MIT even had a contest for perpetual motion devices and no one won it. https://news.mit.edu/1998/motion
It'll be interesting, I could end up doing things the smartest people in the U.S. can't do.
And as for the laws of physics are concerned, there is this;
Conservation of angular momentum is a physical property of a spinning system such that its spin remains constant
unless it is acted upon by an external torque; put another way, the speed of rotation is constant as long as net torque is zero.
https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/defin ... r-momentum

What that means is that the torque to create the overbalance needs to be less than the torque it generates.
I'm aware of 7 or 8 ways that can work. And if there's that many different ways that I know of then I think people
will be able to think of other mechanics that allows for perpetual motion.
And a familiarity with Newton's laws of motion can help to create such a frame work as well.

[Da Ewe]

With this illustration, a drop of 22 below the axle when 65 1/2 from the center of the axle is easy enough to factor.
Online trig calculators will also give the answer in a couple of seconds. While I usually only consider the x axis, when
needing to know the work that is being performed to create the overbalance the y value will need to be known.
There is one theorem that will be found to be true, the torque the overbalance weight to the right of the axle generates
will be equal to the work it can do when lifting 2 weights. And yet when 2 weights are lifted 2 x 11 = 22 and the weight
that is dropping will have a drop of 131. This means that when it is moving from above to below the axle to lift 2 weights,
if that distance is 44 then 131 - 44 = 87.
While it will create torque to rotate the wheel while lifting two weights, that vertical drop is only about 1/3 of its total drop.
What math allows to be made known. And by being able to calculate total net torque and the wheel's moment of inertia,
then it's rotational velocity or rpm could be estimated. And I find with a wheel, as the law conservation of angular momentum
states, it's more about net torque.

p.s., While I could've made a cleaner more professional looking graph, this was something quick I did so everyone
would have a good idea how math helps to evaluate a design and account for potential net torque. The double oscillating
pendulum (Milkovic's Pendulum) can work perpetually. For that you'd need to be willing to do the math and time the
movements of both pendulums.

[JUBAT]

How is the math that lead you up to your previous failed designs any different than the math you are showing us now? I will bet you 100 bucks your next wheel won't work. No looping videos on YouTube. Virtual success doesn't count.

I've also started a drinking game. Every time you talk about nazis, Norwegian heritage, ab hammer, solving a planetary crisis, John Collins, his daughter/grand daughter, and being evicted from America, or a response from WC about being banned....i take a swig. Don't get me too drunk now.

[Da Ewe]

How is the math that lead you up to your previous failed designs any different than the math you are showing us now? I will bet you 100 bucks your next wheel won't work. No looping videos on YouTube. Virtual success doesn't count.

I've also started a drinking game. Every time you talk about nazis, Norwegian heritage, ab hammer, solving a planetary crisis, John Collins, his daughter/grand daughter, and being evicted from America, or a response from WC about being banned....i take a swig. Don't get me too drunk now.

That's actually the math for Bessler's Wheel. When people can't do math, they harass someone who uses math. I find it
difficult to believe someone can build a working wheel without using math. An example is what you call my previous failed
build helped me to realize Bessler's Wheel. How is that failing? And yet you don't know enough math to understand anything
I use math to explain. Why is that my fault?
Since you don't understand math I won't be able to explain to you what you don't know because you've never taken the time
to learn it. Simply put, you don't know when y = a sinø + b or x = a cosø + b matters. And that is keeping things very basic.
If you can't do that then I doubt you'll be able to consider when and where torque is developed. And yet when people don't
have the time to learn math, it's my problem.

p.s., if you didn't act like a Nazi I wouldn't compare you to one. They were actually patriots who loved their country. They didn't
understand what was really happening until it was too late. And what you really don't care about is I know a Montana farmer who
started their freshman year of college. They know a working build will allow me to pursue research to find out how previous warm
periods affected Montana. It's possible drought could be more of an issue in the future and core samples would show if that is a
legitimate concern.
They also know I'll need to do that from a different country. When people fight me when I'm pursuing major surgery and possibly
even to help farmers with drought resistant farming, it's because I need to humble myself before people who are better than myself.
After all, it is about who's better, right? I pay for my own builds so why should I have to answer to someone who never cared to
work with me? And yet I'm the problem because I work and had in the past been willing to work with other people. And then the
guy in Romania will show that I am willing to work with someone. Between his invention and my invention we might be able to help
supply Ukraine with emergency power for their electrical grid.

These are some of the Romanians I want to see play live. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwQTkm5NctQ

[WaltzCee]

I've also started a drinking game. Every time you talk about nazis, Norwegian heritage, ab hammer, solving a planetary crisis, John Collins, his daughter/grand daughter, and being evicted from America, or a response from WC about being banned....i take a swig. Don't get me too drunk now.

You'd better start buying your whiskey by the case!!

[JUBAT]

I just took 4 shots. Your reply was the fourth. Even though you didn't talk about banning, the reply was worth it all.

I love rum.

[Da Ewe]

With this example, 44 is OB and 40 is UB (over and under balanced). If the point doing the work to move other weights
is 4 from the axis of rotation, then it is -4. Then it can be considered if all weights have equal mass then the location -4
has the force of 1 weight dropping x distance. This then allows it to be considered how much w = m * d can be done. And
if the concept is not a wheel then that allows for a limit to be known.
And if a wheel type concept is considered, then how much torque/work is being performed by the OB side? Then limits can
be known when using more than 1 weight to perform work. And mechanics does allow for any configuration to have the
potential to work/function. When it comes to math, everything is based on function which describes how/why change occurs.

With the diagram, if I did not use a block to show the center line then it would have been obscured by the program's axis. The
red is left to right, green is to and away from the viewer while blue is up and down.

[Da Ewe]

With this example I show how analytical trigonometry and calculus can be simplified. I mean why do hundreds of math
problems when you can basically just point and click? Using an online calculator or the one on your smart device requires
having to factor each equation individually. With a spreadsheet a single equation can be written. Then copy and paste if
you want to use multiple equations.
What this allows for is that the result of different equations can automatically be factored by using the Epsilon function at the
top of the spreadsheet. That makes it real easy to add, average, etc. values in a column. With the example I show of having a
radius of 5 move from 5 cos 15 to 5 cos 30, I do show my work. This is an example. People can make a spreadsheet anyway
they like. And when averaging a range (in this instance 15 to 30º), the average of ranges can be averaged in a different column.
Just super easy to do.
And with perpetual motion, how can torque/leverage shift the balance of a design? One thing math has really impressed on me
is when a weight starts having force and where it has the most force. And this is in ranges. What people will find is that most
designs can work, the question is how can momentum be conserved? When weights shift and angular momentum changes, that
is when momentum can be conserved.

p.s., This is very important to remember because this math is very screwy. Sine and cosine are inverse functions. Sine is up or
down on the y axis and cosine is to the left or right on the x axis. The problem is that a sin 30 should equal a cos 60. Instead
a sin 30 and a cos 30 have opposite value. A sin 30 should equal a cos 60. Both values are 30º from an axis that is the opposite
of the other. This is something they'll need to change. Function should be relative to axis in this instance but it isn't.
And if they do change it then they'll have to say that trying to understand perpetual motion showed this to be an issue. And if anyone
is interested in making a spreadsheet then I can probably help you. It's like with the jig I made for drilling holes. It took a few hours
over a few days to get it built. It's easy drilling a hole, right?

[Da Ewe]

With this diagram, how to calculate net torque? Work is accepted as w = m * d, right? How can work be quantified?
When a weight drops, for perpetual motion to be possible, a net effect needs to be realized. And if as Bessler said,
weights "shoot out", okay, what does that mean?
With f = ma, for a weight to "shoot out" it basically needs to be perpendicular to the force of gravity. A 90º shift in
force is most efficient. Kind of why I always consider math. It helps me to understand what work might be required
to realize an ideal. Work is change.
And when I made this diagram on SketchUp, they gave me a major upgrade. I'll now need to learn how to use the
tools they gave me. I did make them aware of my work. Before SketchUp I was trained on CATIA from when I worked
for the Boeing Airplane Co. CATIA is the world's most advanced design engineering program.
When I was learning it, I worked for 1 of about 100 companies in the world that used it. It was extremely expensive.
And unless I use pencil and paper, most likely I am using SketchUp.
This diagram shows a 15º rotation. Math can show if anything what it can do.

p.s., for SketchUp to support me is a risk on their part. I did show them the clip that showed a basic motion. For me,
additional options, I am surprised. With my computer system I did buy it so I could work with their program. I do not
have a hard drive. A hard drive requires that hard drive to spin. There is no spintronics involved.
From my perspective, their help with giving me more options to use helps. I can say I hate big companies but designing
what I do isn't free. And yet they do have a free program for people to use. Without their free SketchUp program, I
wouldn't be building today.

p.s.s., Having a company support your work helps. And yet why support the "system"? SketchUp having a completely
free to use program is why I used their program. How to hate a company that gave me free use of their software? I have
to accept their freeware helped me.

[WaltzCee]

One of my favorite Greek mathematicians dying words were

Nōlī turbāre circulōs meōs!

I mostly use the tools he had available. Straight edge, compass. Sometimes I use origami.

I've used working model but haven't in a while. It's a cheap yet powerful tool. Spread sheets have come a long way since lotus123. I designed a market technical indicator I ran on open office. It was more predictive than the vix.

All in all, the most powerful tool I've ever used is the electro-magnetic interface between my mind and my client. I'm rather confident my latest idea was a gift. There's no way I could have figured this out by myself.