Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[Roxaway59]

Hi Fletcher I meant to ask do you know why the last WM2D I posted speeds up when the motor stops? That's what it does in my version maybe it doesn't do it in yours.
Graham

[Fletcher]

Post the sim up again Graham .. IIRC I tweaked it a bit, but it was a while back now - I'll take a looksee ..

[Roxaway59]

Here is the one Fletcher.

[Roxaway59]

If I remember correctly just as the motor releases it speeds up.
Graham

[Fletcher]

Here it is Rox .. I didn't change anything except the velocity graph display so you could get a good look at it, and added a time meter ..

You can see the sim "hunting" slightly i.e. speeding up and slowing down slightly (there are no frictions etc to dampen it i.e. lose energy) - nevertheless a sine wave trend develops if you run it for at least 240 seconds .. this imo is the mechs swinging as they rotate around with the disk, sometimes reinforcing and sometimes not ..

The next thing to do would be to run a comparison test i.e. build another sim and swap out the mechs for straight counter-weights - does it behave the same or different ? - is there another trend developing ? ..

Then change the accuracy setting to something higher , and see if the same trend is there ?

When you have done the change comparisons and analysis then it is time to look deeper by adding air frictions etc ..

What I do suggest is that you change numbers and units to the international SI standard metrics for physics .. i.e. not imperial units ..

[Roxaway59]

Thanks Fletcher, I've only ever used simulators in a fairly basic way so any advice on how to get more out of them is useful.
Graham

[Fletcher]

My overriding advice Rox is that a sim program is very helpful to design concepts and test them - the reliability and dependability ( trust ) factor takes practice, and gets better with experience .. for example I don't know Algodoo but I can see/interpret what most sims show - others know it very well and can give you polish and detail to improve them ..

Sims can aid and be more reliable than your imagination ( depending on your real-world mechanical experience ) but we can't just default to their outputs - we have to stand back and ask are the outputs I'm seeing being interpreted properly in the context of mechanics and physics ? - then to up the game run variations on the same theme, and maybe change-out one build method/component for another and see if a trend continues, or disappears - adjust accuracies etc - dig down to basics of cause and effect ..

While they don't have to be bullet proof ( a real-world build is bullet proof level ) they need to stand up to a reasonable level of scrutiny and stress testing - and example in WM2D is that many a person has been fooled by collision 'bugs' - even tho it is well known and spoken about here often as a trap for the unwary - i.e. when 2 objects set to collide approach each other too fast for the accuracy/iteration steps ( fix - up the accuracy ) between frames they overlap too far and spit each other out adding anomalous energy gain .. it's completely fictional and well known - basically its not a program bug but a user bug - while stress testing up the accuracy etc ..

We all have to watch out for confirmation bias, because we want to see an energy or PE gain .. a good way to avoid misleading ourselves is to share sims and let others stress test it beyond what you have already done in preparation ..

Sims help me calibrate my imagination, to the point that my imagination is not as wrong as often ..

[Roxaway59]

Thanks Fletcher, some of the things you mention I have done to a certain degree. I tend to swap parts and change sizes and weights to see if something still works the same way. I didn't fall for the bug you mentioned in WM2D because to me it looked unnatural. It isn't easy to get something acting over unity in WM2D though so when it happens it does leave me wondering a bit if the math's in the program is trying to tell us something.
Graham

[Fletcher]

fwiw I've asked the question many times with no real answer from any programmers etc ..

Is it 'top-down or bottom-up' calculating ? i.e. if top-down will be constrained by conservation Laws and not able to show OU ..

Imo it is bottom-up and will be able to show a physics workaround to OU - for a couple of reasons ..

We build from simple objects and components, and usually the complexity grows as we add more - the program keeps track/place and dynamism of all physics aspects for each object independently and combines them etc ..

I can fake OU by adding a fake force, or have objects change mass "mid-flight" etc, in a sim as I've done many times and show OU - therefore it is not top-down constrained imo ..

** All we have to do is find that one mechanical workaround that allows objects to rise upwards gaining PE at no extra energy cost lol - and the WM program at least should allow it, I hope ..

[Robinhood46]

I agree with you on that Fletcher.
When we find a workaround in the real world, i think the sim will acknowledge the workaround, for the same reason as in the real world. We aren't mistaken about the laws, just the application of them, and the simulations have no reason to not show OU, because they will be respecting every aspect of physics they are programmed to respect. Nothing will change for them, they will simply show us where we were wrong in our assumption that PM was impossible.

[agor95]

Hi Robinhood46

Nothing will change for them, they will simply show us where we were wrong in our assumption that PM was impossible.

I appreciate the logic in your reasoning. It does assume there is no assumptions being made in the sim.

There is one assumption that is heavily use in simulations as a short cut that prevents them modelling PM; imho.

Regards

[Roxaway59]

Hi Fletcher / Robinhood46, I did start to write a fairly lengthy post on this but instead I will just keep it brief.

I agree that the simulations should show over unity if it is there, especially in WM2D. However I also believe that it may be possible to have subroutines in the software preventing the discovery of over unity if someone stumbles on the right approach. That is one of the main reasons why I don't trust simulators.

The other reason is a concern that possibly some of the maths is not entirely correct. The danger is that anyone who has too much faith in them could play around with the right idea and still get nowhere if either of these are true.

I know that many people will think that I am taking things too far and hope that is the case because WM2D is a powerful time saving tool IF all is well.
Graham

[Roxaway59]

Just one further point on this.

Someone could make the argument that because WM2D has been around for a long time that this should have increased the probability of Besslers wheel being rediscovered. Therefore this is further evidence that there's nothing to find.

If however the program is in some way rigged then the exact opposite argument could be made with it reducing the probability due to people making less real builds.
Graham

[agor95]

Hi Roxaway59

That reminds me of the old phrase :-

The absences of proof is no proof of absences.

We can agree 'The Quest' solution is elusive in nature.

I have proposed simulations use assumptions to short cut to a reasonable and logical result.

The absences of proof of 'The Quest' does not prove it's does not exist.
The absences of a simulation that shows an increase in system energy which can be mathematically confirmed.
This does not proof the simulators of today are in error 99% of the time.

However there is a possible line of inquiry that results is a simulator engine that agrees with the others 99% of the time.
Also allows a system to exhibit the 'The Quest' behavior.

Summary

Physical builds have a chance to resolve 'The Quest'. However the dynamics present requires a really good imagination.
Current simulation software helps in visualisation within their error prone inaccuracies.
However they are restricted and will diverge from reality when 'The Quest' is found.

Regards

[Robinhood46]

I don't see the reason to include "safeguards" against PM, if it is universally accepted that PM is impossible, because it would violate the laws that the program is designed to respect.
That is like saying it is absolutely impossible to walk to the moon, but we had best build a fence to stop anyone from walking there.
Why have so many simulations shown OU through bugs, or glitches, or whatever we wish to call them, if there is a safeguard to stop this from occurring? It doesn't seem logical to me, to argue there are safeguards.

The conspiracy argument can't be validated or disproved, which is pretty much the same for most conspiracies, which is why they exist in the first place, irrespective of whether they turn out to be true or not. I personally don't believe that something "so simple, a carpenters lad could build" would stay secret for very long, because once one person has shown the workings to a few people, the cat is out of the bag.
The idea that some "men in black" are going to bump off a few people to keep the secret is one thing, but if the conspiracy gets as ridiculous as the flatearther's brigade of people hiding the secret from us "mere mortals", you've got to call it a day with the conspiracy theory.

I think it all boils down to, what exactly is the factor that makes it PM. This will determine if the simulations can or can't simulate it, and It could go both ways.
My money is on yes, yes simulators will be able to simulate PM.