MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code

[johannesbender]

.
I want to talk about this, Fletcher.

that's why Wubbly commented that as rpm increases the system COM moves in the wrong direction for s

&

If a Prime Mover can handle the latency factor of weights relocating (within itself) then you have a winner WC ..

.
wrt the gradient between different power levels of equvilent energies. The higher the frequency, the more power. If you want to term it a mechanism, I've SIM'ed it. This is the Bruce Lee of mechanisms.



This is 3 foot, 300 rpm. The CoM is tracking reasonably circular, yet it is more high frequency than the disk it's riding on, causing it to be generated.

The mechanism is the simple machine I thought I discovered. You may remember, Fletcher. I don't know what to call it. I think the control system to harvest and use that more power would be a mechanical nightmare. Look at the control system on Elon's Induction motor. Try and duplicate that mechanically.

I wouldn't want to pay the engineer by the hour to do that work. That's a career, a government job

Thats really cool , is it free energy ?

[JUBAT]

I recognize that path...that's a bounce! So instead of having weights move and park, if the weights are bouncy balls or rather the warped boards that were seen in the wheel were the "springs" - then as the weight fell and bounced repeatedly, it caused impacts to kick the wheel along. Pretty clever - it's a recoil or literally kick the can down the road principle. Interesting and simple yes, but still a runner not.

I'll add that to my mental arsenal.

[JUBAT]

Further on the matter if rollers or balls bobble down the side like a plinko board, the effects of that would be very interesting. Weights constantly in motion and you should be able to bounce them around to where ever you need them to go. One could go so far as to keep them on the same side of the hub or even bounce and guide them across the wheel. Kind of like raindrops falling through the sky.

[WaltzCee]

• Hi Walt .. what I'm seeing in your attachment is a roughly circular track that the system COM follows ..
  
  Altho you say it is on a 3 ft wheel I can't tell what the diameter of that circular COM track is - I'd guess quite small and you've enlarged it to show the track detail ..
  
  What you appear to show is one revolution of the disk at 300 rpm - iow's one revolution in 0.2 secs, which supports the contention that the sys COM diameter and circumference traveled is very small indeed iinm ..
  
  Next, the saw tooth shape of the track on the down-going side - it appears to have the same amplitude but the oscillation time step appears to get larger and larger as it descends - and we get greater track shape detail as it descends ..
  
  My conclusion at this point is that it is some "bounced between pillar and post" (oscillating) mechanism with no contact friction losses etc, but I could very well be wrong and it is just a guess ..
  
  I'll have to take your word on it showing higher frequencies and what that means in terms of power output etc .. it's above my pay grade !
  
  Best -f

• I'll have to take your word on it showing higher frequencies and what that means in terms of power output etc .. it's above my pay grade !

Well Mr Fletcher, IMNSHO [in my not so humble opinion] you are due for a promotion.

• Altho you say it is on a 3 ft wheel I can't tell what the diameter of that circular COM track is - I'd guess quite small and you've enlarged it to show the track detail ..
  
  What you appear to show is one revolution of the disk at 300 rpm - iow's one revolution in 0.2 secs, which supports the contention that the sys COM diameter and circumference traveled is very small indeed iinm ..

I do show one revolution, the first one. If you'll notice, rev2 starts at a bit of a higher GPE than rev1. What you think you're seeing would be a design goal. That CoM path is on the edge of the disk. I often put mechanisms on the edge and spin them to see how the behave.

• I like to schling the cake out of them. See how they behave under pressure.

This isn't what you've guessed, Fletcher, but if one balanced 3 of these mechanisms around the rotation, then that design would be what you imagine.

• 3 times the energy of the rotation, but at a higher frequency. Three times the energy with a CoM humming at the system CoM.

This would be the heart.

There are other design considerations to get this spark of life walking upright.

[WaltzCee]

.
This balanced motion would need very little work from an OOB mechanism to sustain it. The only way further is to answer the question

• Is there enough power in this heart to create its own cause with an excess to do work?

Darnit. That's 2 questions.

This simple machine vibrates at low rpm's also.

[WaltzCee]

.
I want to go thru your post Fletcher, starting at the end then going to the beginning. You offer the best scientific perspective & objections I can see & I know I'll have to answer questions you most likely are going to raise.

• If you'll notice, rev2 starts at a bit of a higher GPE than rev1.

What happens with more revolutions is the start/stop time of the frequency advances. That is precession energy. The peak-to-peak of the signal stays in the range establish by its first path.

• Some extra energy of this simple machine is manifested as precession energy.

I think Grimer, of Grim, Grimer, & Grimest, was the first to speak of precession energy as a source to cause PM. I disagree. That precession is essential to propagate the higher frequency, vibrating at a higher freq than the wheel velocity. & doing it 3 times as frequently.

The precession energy might be thought of as its voice. If you take the air out of it, you will kill it.

• One can't harvest precession energy.

IMNSHO.

Do you have any thoughts Fletcher, before I move up your post?

[WaltzCee]

.
My imagination is vivid. I have lucid dreams. When I'm sleeping and notice I'm dreaming, I half wake up & start walking around in that world. I ask questions. I fly. I move to different locations, then come back to where I started.

• I imagine this mechanism is the heart beat of the LSAM [large scale atomic model]. It is the nucleus.

Knowing how vivid my imagination can be, I'd suggest everyone take this with a grain of salt. Maybe 2 grains.

ETA
Fletcher's in the house!
ETA2

• I often put mechanisms on the edge and spin them to see how they behave.

[WaltzCee]

• Thats really cool , is it free energy ?

I see it as a gradient between 2 different levels of power with equivalent energies.

equivalent: 中文(简体)翻译：剑桥词典

maybe free, for those who know how to create it. The more frequently energy goes from a minimum to a maximum, the more power there is.

• A single licensing agreement is available for this technology, complete with engineering drawings & dimensions of all necessary variables [i.e mass, distances, etc.]

.
ETA
.
The bidding for the single licensing agreement is going to start way over the fiscal heads of most folks net worth. There is still hope. I intend to expose this mechanism in maybe 2 chapters of the book that is begging me to write.

I will have full, sequential graphics of me grabbing the hem of its white apron, then yanking it up, exposing the full glory of its nakedness!

You have my word.

[WaltzCee]

Just curious WC. You've mentioned this 9 million rpm mechanism at least a couple of times. How much of what you've discovered fits the clues as found at: https://besslerwheel.com/clues.html

. .. .. .

None.

[Fletcher]

... Fletcher , Could you perhaps clear up your theory here a little more ?

It would seem to me almost like your saying any system that loses PE to producer torque would suffice , but then my mind leaps towards a spring can cause torque, or is it gravity specific torque as in levers ? or do you mean its torque specific from weight ? i'm not clear on what you mean ?

Hi jb .. according to my theory any source of torque probably would do - the objective is just to cause an initial movement .. it is the only way I can reconcile B's. MT notes and copious amount of obvious OOB related clues in AP etc .. springs of course can produce torque and are often used in conjunction with weights to compress or extend springs etc - but there is usually a trade off in mech COM and lag to deal with .. most of B's. MT comments that are positive are about weight OOB systems and that is what most of us, now and in history attempt for OB (i.e. torque).

Or , Fletcher what if you apply Occam's razor :

1) Perhaps the RPM was limited by the exact way the mechanisms functioned , and unlike mechanism on a disc being RPM driven by a motor , those mechanism drove the discs' rpm instead.

2) Perhaps the RPM was governed , and never exceeded its functional limit.

3) Perhaps weights did not relocate.

4) ?

I think 1. and 2. jb .. imo rpm was determined by proportions / ratio's - too fast and Cf's held everything at the rim - and the way, and the time, for the mechs to fully function imo ..

Additionally we know that the earlier one-way wheels had speed regulation bolts wound to the axle (friction braking) - this was a simple speed limiter method and also a load test method - B. allowed visitors to wind the bolt in and out i.e. slow it down and speed it up ..

[WaltzCee]

.

• 300+ years of something we can't really say was for real or not. Mankind wanting free energy, but only one person out of billions that "solved" it? KB and JB will have you believe there are 3, but I'm leaning hard to none.

I ran across some pics of an attempt at building KB's wheel. It failed.
.
.

.
I think a book claiming PM should come with exacting blue prints to such an extent, that even a caveman should be able to replicate it.

Before I even put an outline together, I will have a working model, semi-sentient, walking upright. Then I'll begin to presale the book.

No comments, brothers?

ah, there you went, Fletcher :). snuck up on me.

[Fletcher]

Hi Walt .. so it appears it is just one mech at the rim of a 3 foot diameter disk and its rpm is motor driven to 300 rpm, and that you tracked.

** It depends on the rpm motor you choose i.e. rpm speed will instantly start at and maintain 300 rpm - torque driven rpm will start slower and speed up until at 300 rpm etc iinm ..

Anyways .. I think you are in a better and a worse shape than me - better because you have a full sim, but you don't know how to mechanically harness and use your "effect/harmonics" .. ** but wm2d sims can be problematic with overlap errors if frame rate is too slow for the speed of internal parts colliding etc - then they can collision overlap from one frame to the next and are instantly spit apart introducing fictitious energy gains into the sim .. so you try it out at all sorts of variances to try and find a weakness in the sim ..

Therefore .. I think you (like me) have little choice other than to build a working model to verify what the sim predicts by way of comparison .. In my case keep trying to complete a sim but the real focus is on getting to a real-world build of basic principles to fold into a POP ..

** going away for a week shortly, so in case I don't say it before, good luck as always ..

[WaltzCee]

.

• Therefore .. I think you (like me) have little choice other than to build a working model to verify what the sim predicts by way of comparison

• .. In my case keep trying to complete a sim but the real focus is on getting to a real-world build of basic principles to fold into a POP ..

I agree, that needs to happen before one even begins to write the outline for a book. I have come up with a title

• LSAM 1.0

• A PMM So Simple, Even a <Caveman> Can Build

I might replace caveman with Kenneth W. Behrendt. I want the first book to launch a contest & the second book, LSAM 2.0.

[johannesbender]

... Fletcher , Could you perhaps clear up your theory here a little more ?

It would seem to me almost like your saying any system that loses PE to producer torque would suffice , but then my mind leaps towards a spring can cause torque, or is it gravity specific torque as in levers ? or do you mean its torque specific from weight ? i'm not clear on what you mean ?

Hi jb .. according to my theory any source of torque probably would do - the objective is just to cause an initial movement .. it is the only way I can reconcile B's. MT notes and copious amount of obvious OOB related clues in AP etc .. springs of course can produce torque and are often used in conjunction with weights to compress or extend springs etc - but there is usually a trade off in mech COM and lag to deal with .. most of B's. MT comments that are positive are about weight OOB systems and that is what most of us, now and in history attempt for OB (i.e. torque).

So ,what i am taking away from this , is you are more or less saying any rotation would do , have you thought about straight line motion or is it just rotational , and could it be even perhaps just a disk which is hand started with no other weights sort of deal ?

[Fletcher]

So ,what i am taking away from this , is you are more or less saying any rotation would do , have you thought about straight line motion or is it just rotational , and could it be even perhaps just a disk which is hand started with no other weights sort of deal ?

Hi jb .. this is a bit involved ..

I generally believed over the years that once the Prime Mover mech was found, and assuming it was gravity activated etc, that it could be cobbled to just about any OOB sub-system (MT is full of them) - this answered the riddle of why B. was so bullish about many MT's of various types, and his obvious comments in favour of OOB in AP etc, and him claiming to have found it where everybody had looked etc - there is no doubting that he is describing OOB/persistent imbalance/superior force ..

So for a long time I looked for a mech that could be added to any OOB sub-wheel including the likes of MT's 44 and 48 - and I tended to look for mechs that physically interacted with OOB weights to change their placements etc (MA and leverage) - but I realized that this was just disguising "simple machine" Law of Levers thinking and that I needed to broaden the scope to include inertial interactions without MA physicality ..

I also thought that if B. was adding the Prime Mover mech to various OOB wheels then shouldn't the Prime Mover mech be able to generate persistent imbalance/superior force itself ? - therefore making the OOB sub-wheel redundant/obselete - he would have been just as famous for a stand alone Prime Mover mech that produced sustained OOB i.e. self moving - but then he couldn't bamboozle us all with the various descriptions of OOB actions in his written works etc and that might dangerously narrow the field so to speak - keep it as broad as possible and us guessing for an eternity ..

So to answer your questions regarding my theory and mechs ..

Yes, I think just about any method of initiating rotation will do ..

Yes, I've explored a straight line application where I believe it has no special qualities - this theoretically is turned on its head when in the inertial rotational environment, so rotational it is for now - fwiw I don't think I could adapt it to a reciprocating see-saw device without a lot of further thought, if at all, which goes against the grain for me ..

"could it be even perhaps just a disk which is hand started with no other weights sort of deal ?"

I believe I could probably adapt the Prime Mover mech so it incorporated sliding OOB weights to create an imbalance as a separted OOB sub-system would do - it would take more space and technicality as they share the same space etc - iow's two entities were folded into one .. at this time my mind won't let me envisage doing away with any sort of OOB sub-system entirely (I've been trained too well) but it also may be possible in time ..

But if it works, and is developed further, it may be possible to have the one pure Prime Mover entity that is started from just a hand push start and generates the superior force (mitigates back-torque) thus self-accelerates from that minimal push and self-propogates and maintains rotation at a design threshold rpm (while doing work) ..

Works wonderfully in my mind-sim atm - don't they all, lol ..