MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code

[WaltzCee]

Wubbly wrote

It still seems like a dead end.

It is a dead end !!
But it is your choice to prove me wrong.

. .. .. .

as opposed to your choice to prove that you're right?

This is classic PMS reasoning.

also, this thread is a good read.

[JUBAT]

That's the problem with all of these gravity wheels. The COM is always on the wrong side of where you want it to be.

And if you run them in reverse, the COM flips to the other side.

They are always working opposite to OB.

Here from WC's referral...

I see this as being an important thing to identify...the COM is always on the wrong side. In terms of a wheel, the closer to the center you are with weights, the closer together they are and therefore more dense.

You would almost have to remove a few weights on the ascending side and then replace them on the descending side.

Can certain mechanisms in effect remove a weight from a wheel? Perhaps not physically, but with it's placement and this may be an important clue from the toys page because of hammer toys always having one weight physically touching the center (the end of a column which looks like a drum that a hammer is physically touching) and in effect, removing it or any influence its weight has on the wheel. The wheel would see this as if the weight was removed.

I tend to think of a hammer jutting out into thin air as physically leaving the confines of a wheel, but moving a weight from there all the way to the center is not going to happen. Too much energy is required to move it that far. It may be right to conclude that there are heavy weights pretty close to the core of the wheel and neither of them has to move very far. Bessler would have been able to adjust the speed and torque of his wheels by simply changing how big they were. A large flywheel with weights near the center would accelerate slower and spin slower, but have lots of torque. Put fewer weights around the circumference and shrink the size of the wheel and it would accelerate quite a bit faster, but not have as much torque.

I like those weights 90 degrees to each other...something tells me there is something special about that arrangement since we see 90 degrees in the toys diagram.

[WaltzCee]

I like those weights 90 degrees to each other...something tells me there is something special about that arrangement since we see 90 degrees in the toys diagram.

Nikola Tesla noticed a similar idea wrt magnetic fields, Jubat, and 'invented' the induction motor.
I'm thinking great minds think alike here. :). You da bomb buddy!

An aspect of that motor is there needs to be some energy/power injected into the circuit.

• Even if 2 masses are orthogonally opposed, the resultant vector is the arithemetic mean.

Everyone anxiously awaits the delivery of that key.

[WaltzCee]

I am thinking * you have a love/hate fetish with this man.
Do you want him too botty spank you?

So by posting on your fetish bro thread you keep his memory alive in your heart.

It was actually a game of pin the tail on the
self-absorbed jackass & control freak.

You lose, supa dupa freak, er, I mean geek.

• The kind you don't
  take home to momma!

*who the hell do you suppose you're kidding? You think? Don't make me laugh.

Now when any come to BW, they can see you in the fraud section, advertising for a bit of booty spanking bromance.

Best of luck in your new trolling venture.
.

[JUBAT]

I like those weights 90 degrees to each other...something tells me there is something special about that arrangement since we see 90 degrees in the toys diagram.

Nikola Tesla noticed a similar idea wrt magnetic fields, Jubat, and 'invented' the induction motor.
I'm thinking great minds think alike here. :). You da bomb buddy!

An aspect of that motor is there needs to be some energy/power injected into the circuit.

• Even if 2 masses are orthogonally opposed, the resultant vector is the arithemetic mean.

Everyone anxiously awaits the delivery of that key.

I work far too hard at something I think is an unsolvable prank. I have thought that the wheel works by at least 2 systems in juxtaposition to each other for a long time. How those 2 were arranged has been beyond me, but now I'm thinking that there are heavier inner weights and smaller outer weights and between the 2 they work together by pushing each other out of what would normally be their keel points.

I think this points to a critical part of the build that may explain why nobody can figure it out. You almost need to know the layout of the 2 heavy weights and the smaller weights as well as all moving parts so hat you can balance the 2 systems in advance. In theory you could build the right wheel, but end up with a keel point which would cause you to write it off as a non-runner.

Will there be a running wheel in my lifetime? No and not in this century either. Perhaps after that at some point.

[Fletcher]

That's the problem with all of these gravity wheels. The COM is always on the wrong side of where you want it to be.

And if you run them in reverse, the COM flips to the other side.

They are always working opposite to OB.

Here from WC's referral...

I see this as being an important thing to identify...the COM is always on the wrong side.

Just to be clear .. Wubbly knew that his skillfully built OOB sims (of many and various kinds) could not run on their own - they would rotate a little and seek and find the PQ position of lowest GPE, where they would stop.

So he added rpm motors to the axle so that they would maintain a certain rpm and he could see the actions as they were meant to be etc ..

That's when he noticed that the system COM would move horizontally even further away from what he desired in an an OOB wheel ..

That system COM movement away (either when rotated CW or CCW) was due to "lag" i.e. it takes time for weights and levers etc to physically reposition to a new location .. and the faster the motor driven rpm the greater the lag became due in part to often greater Cf's contributing to lag effect ..

[JUBAT]

Is overbalance not the way the wheels worked then?

[WaltzCee]

Is overbalance not the way the wheels worked then?

I think that's the answer, but maybe some energy source needs to cause/sustain that imbalance.
.
This is one of Nikola's induction motor.
.

.
This is Elon's improvement
.

.
The biggest difference I notice is the imbedded control system. What a monster!

[JUBAT]

I was reading about those motors and they are called the Y motors I believe.

So if we are going to give up on oob as the reason for the rotation, then what's next?

Are we getting into embedded pendulums that self-amplify? Rotations and counter-rotations embedded within the same mechanism?

Getting back to basics, Bessler said as one weight was nearer the axle, the other is farther away - for I can't put the matter any more plainly, but he never said imbalance was the reason for the rotation. He knew after he found the solution why all the others failed and every last one of them is some kind of oob wheel.

Yes, this won't be solved in my lifetime...just too difficult.

[WaltzCee]

So if we are going to give up on oob as the reason for the rotation, then what's next?

I think that's the answer, but maybe some energy source needs to cause/sustain that imbalance.

discover the prime mover, grasshopper.

ETA
Wonder where Fletcher is on that journey . .. .. .

[Fletcher]

Yep .. discover the Prime Mover apparatus and likely EVERY & ALL OOB wheels can become runners ...... imo ..

[WaltzCee]

.
They asked Nikola Tesla if he was angry that they stole his ideas and he answered,

• No. I'm angry they had
  no ideas of their own.

There is an imbalance between the stator & rotor, yet it needs to be plugged into a power source to cause that imbalance to exist and be driven.

Some stumble on the idea of the gradient in orthogonal forces and phase shifting and imagine they've discovered some great mystery of creation. and they're the only ones that know it!

too funny.

Nikola's motor (as I understand it) was a single phase shift. Elon's motor is 6 phased, iconically represented by the star of David.

I used to suppose sacred geometry was a human contrivance and didn't think much of it. I still think it's man made but traces it's roots back to the observations of the cult of Pythagóras.

That's where Bessler found 'his' ideas.

[WaltzCee]

. .. .. .

Getting back to basics, Bessler said as one weight was nearer the axle, the other is farther away - for I can't put the matter any more plainly, but he never said imbalance was the reason for the rotation. He knew after he found the solution why all the others failed and every last one of them is some kind of oob wheel.

Yes, this won't be solved in my lifetime...just too difficult.

I thought someone mentioned Bessler claimed his wheel was an OB wheel. I looked here and couldn't find it, then searched the web and found John's blog

https://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/20 ... t.html?m=1
.
and this opening

Monday, 16 April 2012
Bessler's wheels, out-of-balance and set to spin spontaneously.
There's been some talk about whether Bessler's wheel was out of balance and if it was balanced when stationary. It seems obvious to me that because the first two one-way wheels began to spin spontaneously as soon as the brake was released it must have been out of balance while stationary and it was only the brake or lock or ties which held it motionless.

.
The first 2 wheels appear to be perpetually imbalanced. What caused that is the question.

What really caught my eye were the comments. They're hilarious. A gaggle of experts from 2012.

We can be funny when we seriously pretend we know something. Little kids do the same thing.

Follow the link then read the comments. It's good for a laugh.

[JUBAT]

During REM sleep this morning, I thought popped into my mind. No pictures, so hang on every word to get the idea.

Teeter totter evenly balanced. Now place weight #1 on one end. On the other end is an axle which is parallel to the teeter totters main axle. The hole the axle goes through on the end of the teeter totter is oversized so the axle can roll around in it. Now change the inside of the hole which the axle rolls around in to gear teeth. Change the axle to have a gear which meshes with the gear in the hole. As you spin the teeter totter around, the axle is forced to rotate in perfect time to the entire rotating assembly.

Now on that geared axle, put a weighted flywheel - weight #2.

The idea being that as weight #1 goes down, it causes the flywheel (weight #2) to spin. Once weight #1 hits the bottom, weight #2 continues to spin and climb itself up the geared housing it's in which causes weight #1 to rise. The cycle repeats.

So it's kind of an oob wheel but not totally reliant on that because the spinning flywheel is used to propel the weight up the other side. I would think this would kind of start off slow, but as multiple mechanisms came into play, the spinning flywheels would bank up energy and keep propelling the wheel.

Or at the very least it would make great kinetic art that keels.

[Fletcher]

discover the prime mover, grasshopper.

ETA
Wonder where Fletcher is on that journey . .. .. .

Yep .. discover the Prime Mover apparatus and likely EVERY & ALL OOB wheels can become runners ...... imo ..

My views are simple Walt .. here's the conversation I had with myself, and continue to do so ..

** Any OOB wheel format will do, for that portion or a runner .. evidence is MT's 6, 44, 48 format differences ..

Q. What would be the function of ANY OOB format in a runner ? A. to cause an initial movement/motion/torque .. Q. but it would seek and find the PQ position ?! A. yes, that is it's mechanical nature and function !

Q. So that would mean that any bi-directional runner can operate with just one OOB system, which works to create movement just as well in either direction and doesn't need to be doubled for retrograde motion ? A. yes .. but you might need 2 Prime Mover systems for opposite directions ..

Q. What is the nature and purpose of the Prime Mover apparatus/mechanism ? A. to provide a timed and periodic directional push to the wheel to give it extra momentum .. Q. I see, but according to the Laws of Physics extra velocity/momentum is also extra KE and that energy must come from somewhere, if not stored internally ? A. yes, that means the Prime Mover mech must be activated by position and gravity influence, so that it morphs shape and in doing so loses some GPE (let's say it is a CW runner) - the Prime Mover is latched until at 11.30 pm thereabouts, when it is released, and it thereafter loses some GPE as it morphs shape altering inertial conditions a bit like the ice skater effect and this "kicks" the whole wheel along by boosting its rpm - then the Prime Mover rebounds to its former shape again and relatches itself, but this happens between say 1.00 and 2.30 pm depending on stable rpm state - it has regained original shape but the restoration of the Prime Mover didn't occur until it was at a lesser angle (compared to vertical) than it started at from 11.30 pm - this means that there is less vertical height to be regained in the Prime Mover apparatus to reset itself ..

Q. What happens to this "lost" GPE (vertical height) that was not recovered in the reset at say 2.30 pm ? A. if full vertical height of restitution did not occur but the device regained its former shape as before release then after normal system energy losses to friction etc the balance of energy "lost" must have been transformed into directional KE to balance the energy budget and not violate Newton's Laws of Physics and the Laws of Thermodynamics !

Q. But how can I rationally explain that boost in wheel rpm (gain in KE/momentum) from conservative gravity force and the gravity activated Prime Mover mechanism being activated and then primed to go again when next required given what I said above ? A. yes, it is a bit of a problem to explain in Physics terms .. perhaps momentum is transferred from the earth to the parasitic runner .. or perhaps the mechanics of Prime Mover shape transformation and recovery are so unique that the runner can not find the PQ position because it has an extra speed given forever kicking it on by the PQ, but that is even harder to explain rationally in known physics terms ..

Q. oh, I see, quite a handful to follow each mechanical step thru and not make any mistakes in your visualizations !? A. yes, a bit to work thru, but working well in my imagination .. the litmus test will be an actual build when I have the time an inclination to do so - unfortunately I can't sim all of the imagined runner mechanics adequately - working on work-arounds and simplifications if possible, that don't compromise essential mechanical elements and functions as I imagine them to operate ..

Q. Thanks for the conversation, you probably left some non-essential detail or context out ? A. yes, I am not writing a thesis and you surprised me with your questions this morning, and I hadn't prepared for them - this is the general gist of things (t&c's .. information should not be relied upon), I'll concentrate and try harder next time lol ..

.............

To Walt ..

Wonder where Fletcher is on that journey . .. .. .

Still a Work-In-Progress is the short answer ! Also called fletcher's "kicking the can down the road" theory, played by all kids in the street ..