MTM5

[MrVibrating]

Final thought - most of the discs' areas are dead mass, so armatures / folding linkages may be the more optimal design.. less sturdy for a real build of course, but conceptually streamlining for sim-world at least..

[agor95]

As interesting as this all is and as hopeful as I am, my skepticism is at an all time high.

I smile as you are chumping popcorn in the back row :)

There is the direct route to Bessler solution a narrow flow of reason, intuition and education.

Skepticism is within all or most here. Saying that skepticism is not fun but it is real full of uncertainty and reassuring to be in the orthodox shallows.

It can be fun too jump in the deep end from time to time.

Exploring around the narrow flow can be fun; an unexpected journey along side eddies .

It also helps members improve their swimming skills.

Regards

[johannesbender]

Well as always from me , good luck.

[Roxaway59]

Hi MrVibrating, I'm going to take agor95's advice and jump in at the deep end and just offer this little thought. Personally I kind of dropped the idea of Besslers wheel working in 2d because for me there just seemed to be something nagging at me about it so I’m hoping that yours isn't just 2d. I don't know if it was this whole idea of levering a larger weight with a smaller weight always ending the same way as a rolling ball wheel or what. At one point I was considering making it a law. This would of course been completely tongue in cheek because I’m not qualified to come up with such things. I was going to call them Roxaway59’s laws of do’s and dont’s or something like that. The other thing I would like to say is I don’t think that this is an idea that Bessler would have thought of and then experimented with. I think he would have to have stumbled upon it by accident by seeing the effect and then running with it. Later he could gain understanding about it and then fool himself into thinking he actually thought of it before experimenting with it. I think this is something that only time will tell as the complexity of your device finally starts to take shape in the real world. I for one will be over the moon if this turns out to be what Bessler did or a new discovery and will look forward to seeing how the device takes shape. One thing I can say is I like the oscillations that are taking place. In the wheel I described in my last post I had a complex array of cogs all revolving around a central cog complete with guides that kept the weights near the centre on one side but allowed them to move out on the other. When I took everything away but the weights the movement looked hypnotic and beautiful. I realised that I had accomplished what I had set out to do by moving the weights further in at a place where they would normally move further out and they did it almost naturally but only in a visual sense because the wheel slowly lost power. Is it possible at this stage for you to give a real world view of what you are proposing? Either way I will look on with interest and I’m sure I’ve got some popcorn in the cupboard somewhere -).
Graham

[agor95]

Hi MrVibrating

I wish you well with your investigation and it's good you have realised weighted disk are pendulums with extra inertia.

Sliming and simplifying to where all mass at the pendulum end with no resistance is a test variation you might consider.

To summarize the last post. How are you planing to go from this concept to a real world model?

P.S. I will keep out of your thread to give you space.

Regards

[MrVibrating]

Hi MrVibrating, I'm going to take agor95's advice and jump in at the deep end and just offer this little thought. Personally I kind of dropped the idea of Besslers wheel working in 2d because for me there just seemed to be something nagging at me about it so I’m hoping that yours isn't just 2d. I don't know if it was this whole idea of levering a larger weight with a smaller weight always ending the same way as a rolling ball wheel or what. At one point I was considering making it a law. This would of course been completely tongue in cheek because I’m not qualified to come up with such things. I was going to call them Roxaway59’s laws of do’s and dont’s or something like that. The other thing I would like to say is I don’t think that this is an idea that Bessler would have thought of and then experimented with. I think he would have to have stumbled upon it by accident by seeing the effect and then running with it. Later he could gain understanding about it and then fool himself into thinking he actually thought of it before experimenting with it. I think this is something that only time will tell as the complexity of your device finally starts to take shape in the real world. I for one will be over the moon if this turns out to be what Bessler did or a new discovery and will look forward to seeing how the device takes shape. One thing I can say is I like the oscillations that are taking place. In the wheel I described in my last post I had a complex array of cogs all revolving around a central cog complete with guides that kept the weights near the centre on one side but allowed them to move out on the other. When I took everything away but the weights the movement looked hypnotic and beautiful. I realised that I had accomplished what I had set out to do by moving the weights further in at a place where they would normally move further out and they did it almost naturally but only in a visual sense because the wheel slowly lost power. Is it possible at this stage for you to give a real world view of what you are proposing? Either way I will look on with interest and I’m sure I’ve got some popcorn in the cupboard somewhere -).
Graham

Thank you. All we may surmise for now is that Bessler was apparently investigating a concept that involved rotating mass changing radius, in order for him to have serendipitously stumbled across this exploit as i have. My concept at the time, as stated, was to try and accumulate momentum at a slower-than-actual energy cost (it gets more valuable the faster you go), by drawing it from CF force and time rather than directly from gravity and time.

The issue you raise regarding 2D, i would surmise like this: it seems perfectly preposterous to any thinking person to propose that there is even sufficient complexity within the basic laws of mechanics - essentially, the three laws of mechanics plus gravitation - for such an exploit to have hidden for 300 years. It's an insult to the intelligence, like claiming there's an elephant hiding in the fridge.

Yet the fact is that there is sufficient complexity from just the three laws - you don't even need gravity - and only two dimensions. The free energy gradient we're seeing here is the elephant tracks in the custard bowl. Given the small size of the fridge, it seems unlikely there could be more than one elephant however. If this is a real free-energy gradient (and things are looking up, but let's wait and see huh) then it's probably the only one available, so however we go about accessing it, it's statistically near-certain that it's the same one Bessler was harnessing.

Once we're more familiar with it, presumably more Bessler clues will start to align with that understanding. From hereon however - if we do indeed have our own foot in the door - then we don't need Bessler any more and joining the dots to his designs is an almost-academic exercise..

The gain's behaving as if it's a real function of other things happening in the mechanism, changing in a proportionate way to various adjustments, apparently corresponding to a compounding of certain forces. It's not conclusive until we can correlate everything to mathematical perfection, but i see no particular red lights thus far.

In all honesty, the biggest red light to me, prior to this, would have been any evidence of a CoM break from an inertial interaction alone - without gravity even being in the picture. That, to me, was formerly a rule of thumb for debugging false positives - "if gravity's off then it's probably an error" - because i too couldn't previously see sufficient complexity within the domain of inertial interactions to allow for a genuine CoM violation. Yet the float test confirms that there is not one, but two separate CoM breaks here; one angular, the other linear. There is also a stator - another aspect that i'd previously considered a non-starter. The gain depends upon the wheel not being inertially isolated from Earth. It may still depend upon inertial isolation on the internal ("kiiking") rotor, but we'll see. Real or false, all will be laid crystal clear in time.. but for now i've gotta run off to work. Back later..

[MrVibrating]

Hi MrVibrating

I wish you well with your investigation and it's good you have realised weighted disk are pendulums with extra inertia.

Sliming and simplifying to where all mass at the pendulum end with no resistance is a test variation you might consider.

To summarize the last post. How are you planing to go from this concept to a real world model?

P.S. I will keep out of your thread to give you space.

Regards

Still a long way from being prepared to design applications, you're vastly jumping the gun. First we gotta hogtie this mofo. It's cornered with nowhere to go tho..

[agor95]

Hi MrVibrating

I understand your position as it is one that surrounds me.

Two dimensional out of balance devices simplify to swinging compound pendulums.

There are directions to go - Good searching.

Regards

[MrVibrating]

Tried raising wheel speed and thus CF force instead, using the original 2x spin-up speed on the kiiking weight:

4 rad/s 2x spin-up

final KE = 110.8866
initial KE = 92.0050
KE rise = 18.8816
kiiking motor P*t = 18.88177431
kiikiing motor T*dØ = 18.8818774
wheel motor P*t = -30.05772564
wheel motor T*dØ = -30.05772564

total out = 18.8816 + 30.05772564 = 48.93932564
total in = 18.8818774
CoP = 2.59



8 rad/s 2x spin-up

final KE = 409.8921
initial KE = 368.0054
KE rise = 41.8867
kiiking motor P*t = 41.88632781
kiikiing motor T*dØ = 41.88648878
wheel motor P*t = -59.92423548
wheel motor T*dØ = -59.92298361

total out = 41.8867 + 59.92298361 = 101.80968361
total in = 41.88648878
CoP = 2.43


So efficiency is actually decreasing, even though the absolute quantities are greater.

But now there's around 10 G of CF force acting on the weight, we can torque it much harder without counter-torque over-powering the drop:

8 rad/s 128x spin-up

final KE = 1974.5365
initial KE = 368.0080
KE rise = 1606.5285
kiiking motor P*t = 1629.290049
kiikiing motor T*dØ = 1628.996802
wheel motor P*t = -3898.003265
wheel motor T*dØ = -3898.008128

total out = 1606.5285 + 3898.003265 = 5504.531765
total in = 1629.290049
CoP = 3.38

..again, no real benefit over the previous 3.34 CoP under only 2 rad/s of wheel speed, for the dramatically-higher energies involved. There i was, wondering if raising speed might cause the gains to square up with CF force.. and no, doesn't really do much at all. Good to know.


When i next get time i wanna try moving the rotors into coaxial alignment, adding sliding weights via cranks, to see if the gain disappears along with the weight's orbital angular momentum..

[MrVibrating]

Hi MrVibrating

I understand your position as it is one that surrounds me.

Two dimensional out of balance devices simplify to swinging compound pendulums.

There are directions to go - Good searching.

Regards

Mate i dunno if it's even real. Give it another week at least. If i don't bust if first, i'll inevitably end up making more scratch rigs to test further ideas, so may well use planar folding linkages instead of discs next time. Wanna try tweaking all the MoI's first though - only tried raising the blue one so far, but the green one might have more effect, will have to see; for instance the lighter the green MoI relative to the blue one, the faster the green one will accelerate during the braking phase, which may or may not affect efficiency of this magical power stroke..

[MrVibrating]

I've seen one potential hypothesis so far - this notion that perhaps the blue weight's orbital angular momentum relative to the wheel is being harvested for free by the wheel motor, while its axial angular momentum is recouped to unity by its own motor; dunno if it's whack or not, but it's testable, and i'll do so as soon as i get the chance..

..in the meantime, here's an alternate hypothesis to evaluate:

• maybe the blue and green rotors - the 'kiiking' mechanism - are achieving OU on their own, and the inbound MoI stroke is just harnessing that gain, but not part of the exploit so to speak..


What's got me thinking this may be possible is that the means of harnessing the gain, if that's where it's arising, are non-contact - that is, maybe the fact that the excess KE is just swinging inwards against CF force, without interacting directly with any other inertias, insulates it against any actual momentum transfer, as would arise if the gain were harnessed by some kind of mechanical transmission such as using the green rotor to drive gears or pulleys etc.

In short, maybe the fact that the kiiking mechanism maintains inertial isolation both during its gain sequence but also when harvesting the gain, is a key detail of why it's working..

This can be tested simply by monitoring the KE's of the green and blue rotors; it may thus become apparent that they're OU by the time the weight reaches BDC, after unloading its angular momentum into the green rotor, but before the weight's relifted. Maybe i can catch it with a gain halfway through a cycle..



On the specific question of whether if could still be false or not; the results of the float test seem most compelling - the net system (incl. the planet, or whatever the thing is attached to) is accelerated, in both angular and linear dimensions. If this is a false-positive, it's a bloomin' comprehensive one..

[MrVibrating]

Quickie before work:

Precision = Max Freq, 1e-17 I/E
Wheel Velocity = 2 rad/s
Spin-up Multiplier = 16x
Blue MoI = 0.5
Green MoI = 0.125



Final KE = 123.2991
Initial KE = 18.7300
KE Rise = 104.5691
Kiiking Motor P*t = 109.2336219
Kiiking Motor T*dø = 109.2353863
Wheel Motor P*t = -273.1644242
Wheel Motor T*dø = -273.1658252
Total Out = 104.5691 + 273.1644242 = 377.7335242
Total In = 109.2336219
CoP = 3.46


Note the loss on the kiiking efficiency; might suggest there's an upper beneficial speed limit on the green rotor's efficiency.

Will retry this MoI variation later, same-same except for inverting the green / blue MoI ratio back the other way..

[MrVibrating]

So far, the gain seems to be converging towards 350%; the most-obvious ratio this may correlate with being the rotor radii (3m wheel, 1m green, 0.5m blue)..

Too many options to try, and no time for any of 'em for now..

Might try nudging the radius ratios a bit higher, see what happens to this convergent CoP value.

Most of all right now i just wanna measure efficiency of the first half-cycle, to check whether the kiiking mechanism is already OU at BDC, only solving to unity back at TDC where i've been measuring it, after the gain's already been harvested by performing work against CF force.. Maybe i can catch it there on the green rotor at BDC, eliminating whatever happens afterwards from those primary gain conditions..

[Fletcher]

GRAVITY is OFF .. thoughts - the background wheel/disk (earth analogue - 3 meter radius) is held at a constant rotation rate via the velocity motor - the disk has inertia but the motor adjusts/compensates for that ..

After that there is the Kiiking wheel (radius 1 meter) with its MOI .. and the weight disk with radius 0.5 meter and its own MOI etc ..

IINM, the Kiiking motor controls the input of velocity into the weight disk, and reverses the direction according to the Mod-IF formula in the motor velocity input ..

IOW's the dance of the blue weight and the green Kiiking wheel is strictly coordinated .. the players afaik are the 3 disks inertia's, but really it is the latter 2 disks affecting this input which the program calculates for every position and frame ..

The other player is Cf's - mv^2/r and that quanta of force is dependent on the track/path of the dance ..

If individual MOI's don't change (because they are all disks) but linear inertia is mass (unchanged) then we have 2 variables as I see it .. summed linear inertia's (momentums) and Cf's, with perhaps Cf's driving the momentum train forward ..

Not a lot of spare time atm ..

[MrVibrating]

It's slightly more complicated because the mr² of the discs that are mounted, adds to their respective MoI's. So for instance the green disc has a base MoI of 0.5, but it also has the blue disc attached - 1 kg at 0.5m radius - so the net MoI of the green disc becomes 0.75.

This same issue complicates the rotKE calcs, since these are half the MoI times angular velocity squared, and to make things worse the blue disc is constantly changing radius relative to the main wheel, so its compound MoI is in constant flux.

Disentangling the rotKE's is thus a bit of a challenge - we can obviously trust "kinetic()", but can't easily deduce the distinct MoI's by simply inverting it since there's more than one MoI involved.

I did briefly try metering the individual rotKE's but quickly found my calcs weren't summing to "kinetic()"!

No biggie for now however, there's plenty of fascinating aspects to be getting on with; i'm currently chopping the interaction in half, doing a hi-res sim of the drop first, followed by another of the lift - i wanted to check this hypothesis that the system is already OU upon reaching BDC, prior to the lift..

..and preliminary results seem to confirm this, but in an interesting way; the gain at BDC mirrors the energy expenditure of the kiiking motor - so in my initial test of this i used the original 2 rad/s / 2x spin-up settings, in which the kiiking motor had only spent 1.43 J upon reaching BDC, and found a 1.43 J gain in KE (not simply in PE!), which is exciting as it belies the presence of a divergent inertial frame!

So for the hi-res run i raised the spin-up multiplier to 32x - the thinking obviously being that the more work the kiiking motor does during the drop phase, the more excess KE should be present when we pause there at BDC..

This should mean that if for example the kiiking motor spends say 100 J, we'll have a 100 J KE gain at BDC.. and from there of course, in principle we can invert the KE equation by the system MoI to find for the velocity, and then compare this derived velocity to the absolute value to stick a pin in the FoR divergence (how much free velocity we have). You get the picture. This is what empirically resolving an OU interaction is necessarily going to involve - correlating the gain factor to the momentum anomaly per the vis viva resolution..

At that stage we'll be able to conclusively state that we have this much excess energy because we've that much excess velocity..

So i do want to resolve this MoI / rotKE ambiguity at some point, but i'm sure we'll get there eventually.

For now i'm just morbidly curious to dissect the anatomy of this gain by slicing it in half a few times - so after analysing the input and output strokes, i may further divide each in two again, following the interaction around in 90° segments, since this is where the sine datum maxima and minima used to spin and brake are located.

Switching up to 1e-21 i/e for these tests as i really want to see everything square as tightly as possible, but runtimes increase exponentially as you go further down in powers so don't wait up eh.. I've got the whole w/e for this anyway..