Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[Robinhood46]

Roxaway,
I would have liked your thoughts on why the wheel can't be turned into liquid, without shutting down the whole programme, but it is irrelevant to what we are seeing in both programmes.

If it is showing us something, the only thing i can think it is showing us, is that we really do need to not be greedy.
I am not criticising your work when i say there is no power there whatsoever.
It is as though you have shown that we can get some feedback from movement, as long as we accept that we are struggling to sustain movement, with the gain that can be found. Try and do anything with it and you will fail miserably.

The fact that, as Shadow said, there is nothing going on, unless you put everything in motion, and as you point out, if the motion is insufficient it will fail, shows us, i think, that we are not really gaining anything, or more accurately, what we are gaining is so insufficient that it isn't worth writing home about, and the idea of using it to do something, should be considered preposterous.

So to answer your question, The interaction between these pendulums is obviously a positive feedback loop in the simulations but can this positive feedback loop exist in real life?
I would say, it is definitely worth digging deeper to grasp what is actually going on. mainly because you are showing it in WM2D, which i don't have so i can't run it.

All this would correspond to Bessler saying "with one crossbar it's a load of crap" (paraphrasing as usual).
Does this mean the additional crossbars need to interact in a manner that causes a multiplication of the gain not a simple addition. For the simple reason, bugger all + bugger all = bugger all, but bugger all² = a tiny bit, and if the addition of crossbars is exponential then we end up with something worth using?

[Roxaway59]

Robinhood if I use a program and on the pressing of a button it shuts down the lights dim and I hear the dog bark it always gives me a very uneasy feeling. For one thing I haven't got a dog -). You can be sure its a bug though because no one would make a program that would behave like that. Algodoo does the same thing if you try to use a knife on something that is fixed in some way. You may find that if you delete the fixings it doesn't do it.

Yes these simulations have very little power and that is why air resistance is off. What I am thinking is small steps and I'm looking for an indication that something is on the right track. In electronics oscillators are used for a variety of things and are usually linked with other circuits to perform a certain task. I don't know if these types of mechanisms could become powerful in themselves but I can say that I personally haven't seen anything that convinces me they can so far. They could though be part of the solution and that's mainly what I am thinking about.

On the face of it there may be nothing special about using the large pendulum and this as far as I can tell can be replaced with a spring in a similar fashion to simulations I have already posted. Bessler did say I believe that there are no pendulums hanging from my axle.

Graham

[Robinhood46]

Bessler did say I believe that there are no pendulums hanging from my axle.

I think this is an interpretation of when he said there aren't any weights hanging from the axle. It was in the context of, there aren't any weights hanging off the axle, that get lower and lower, as they turn the wheel.
Maybe there is another occasion he spoke of pendulums specifically, that i am unaware of or have forgotten about.

I think you are right that it is a bug, it's just curious that it isn't a bug i have on any other wheel than yours. I have made loads and downloaded a few from different sources and it has never occurred.

I wouldn't be able to comment on the electrical oscillators, or their signification in what the sims are showing, my knowledge in that field is very limited.

I'm not too sure that springs will give the same effect as the pendulums, or maybe, springs could do it, but they would need to be finely tuned and have no scope for variations in the many factors in play. I think pendulums have the advantage of auto regulation, which for the time being is primordial.
Just my thoughts.

[Roxaway59]

Well as they say Robinhood it'll all come out in the wash. We just need to keep washing.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

I thought I would get the old soap box out for a couple of minutes and blow the cobwebs off it.

Robinhood raised the point about these oscillators having no power.

Personally I have messed about with stuff like this till I’ve been blue in the face. It doesn’t have to mean though that there isn’t some way of getting power out of them and I think the important question has to be does any excess power exist at all?

If it does then maybe this is something that can be amplified in some way.

We all know without doubt that Besslers wheel had a strong oscillatory function to it so the only question for me is was it just a powerful over unity oscillator or was the oscillator working in conjunction with something else? The clunking sound may be a clue that it was working with something else.

Whenever I experimented with these oscillators I could never shake off the feeling that something was missing. I still have that feeling today and it isn’t something that is easy to explain. Its like that feeling you get when you leave the house that you forgot something important only to realise later when its too late what it was.

Something is missing off this damn thing and I am not certain what it is.

One thing I am certain about is that you cant just throw these oscillatory systems together and hope that they will work as intended. Unfortunately for me I cant work them out mathematically so everything I do is by trial and error.

Anyway no one ever said that making a gravity wheel is easy so we must persist and carry on experimenting.

Graham

[Fletcher]

There are a few things that strike me about this Fletcher so I wanted to mention some of them.

We have talked many times about resonance, oscillations and positive feedback loops. You have mentioned something about negating the back torque.

It seems to me that this has the possibility of all those things.

Also we have talked about the possibility of the simulations giving an indication of the right approach. This could be that indication.

Its unusual in my opinion for both WM2D and Algodoo to agree on anything.

I first got some positive results in WM2D and I then moved over to Algodoo.

At first I couldn’t get Algodoo to work. I then realised that some of the beams weren’t of a similar weight. On changing the weights it began to work similar to WM2D.

I’m getting the feeling that there is something here.

I just hope that feeling is right.

** One other thing I would like to add is that I believe that it is not tuned correctly. It needs to be optimized not just for one mechanism but for several crossbars working together. All the crossbars have to work in harmony with one another or they will work against one another.

Mornin Rox .. I see that you and RH are rationalizing the sims and nutting out what they mean i.e. making progress in interpreting the outputs reliably ..

Disclaimer .. it gives me no pleasure at all in always being the bearer of bad tidings - being the damp squib and potentially stifling invention, discussion of ideas, and enterprise - that is not my intent nor character - that being said, feedback is important to advance our collective and individual thinking and strategies - to logically and rationally work our way towards a final bullet proof proposal for a gravity PM wheel that maintains its imbalance factor so that it accelerates and is self-moving .. if we don't examine and critique with honesty, and learn from it, we are doomed to be stuck in ground-hog day .. the point imo is to learn from it, eliminate, and move-on ..

FWIW, I think "We" are on the right wave-length/path - we need an oscillating system that has a positive feedback - and that is primarily gained imo from a unique mechanical regenerating imbalance factor i.e. net positive torque to accelerate the wheel - as I often describe it, having a bona-fide asymmetric torque that feeds the continuing and growing CoG imbalance, aided and abetted by an oscillating driver analogue ..

So, onto your sims for discussion ..

I'll just cut to the chase as you and RH have basically got there ..

Background .. My approach with an unusual result is to always firstly simplify by reducing down and taking out unnecessary complexity - I did this with your WM sim as you can see in the animation gifs - for the benefit of the other community members reading your thread the background wheel/disk is connected to a hanging pendulum arrangement - the disk is set in rotation by a motor at -2 rad/sec ( about -20 rpm ) - I changed the motor ON time down from 10 secs to 5 or less seconds - the hanging circulating pendulum interacts with the pivoted "L" shaped hanging pendulum in a feedback situation .. the idea is that the feedback oscillations should build up once the motor is switched OFF - and the sims predict that this is indeed happening - so I added and tweaked and refined some outputs to better show the trends for those less familiar ..

Part of "stress-testing" a sim is to look to the obvious and the not-so-obvious before deciding it is reliable ..

So the obvious thing to do is to adjust the accuracy setting from 50 fps ( in increments of 50's ) and the rising of wheel rpm continues until about 250 fps when it is reduced significantly ( at 500 fps there is no excitation gain in rpm ) .. this suggests to me that there is a potential iteration problem at lower accuracies as the 2 pendulum systems interact i.e. at 50 fps the steps are too large possibly spitting objects apart with energy ( been discussed many times ) ..

The not so obvious is to dumb-it-down even further with a double-check - so I made the 2 pendulums in feedback interaction "do not collide" - and guess what ?! - at 50 fps the wheel rpm still grew ( potential bug at 50 fps ) - increasing the fps this didn't happen any longer .. BUT, the hanging "L pendulum" did NOT increase in amplitude at the same time, indicating there is a sim problem !

Animations and sim available below ..

My conclusions .. the increase in wheel rpm from the interactive feedback mechanism is likely to be not real - because the imbalance factors are not asymmetric imo .. however, I am convinced "we", who follow this line of logic, are in the right ballpark and are refining the approach daily .. keep the focus, and the thinking going ..

ETA .. Georg ( mentioned earlier a few pages back ) also was on this oscillating feedback path, but had no way to mechanically maintain the imbalance asymmetry fwiw ..

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



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



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



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



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

[Roxaway59]

Hi Fletcher I don’t think that you are the bearer of bad news or anything like that. You are expertly pointing out that the simulations are doing something that we would rather they didn’t do.

Simulators are a double edged sword and they can save us time on the one hand but waste time on the other.

Generally they are a good thing and are very useful but have to be used with caution and due diligence. To a certain degree I have found this out the hard way.

If I am honest I was half expecting that you would find what you did because it is becoming a familiar pattern with these simulators.

I should say though that I am not down hearted about it. A process of elimination may not be an ideal way forward especially with so many things to eliminate but it still works as long as you don’t forget the things you eliminated.

Maybe we should have a rouges gallery of eliminated ideas. I know that to a certain degree this already exists but I’m not sure its very well organised. Wasn’t that what Besslers book was all about?

I know I have stated this before in a variety of different ways but I feel compelled to say it again.

The strong feeling that I get is that a lot of these ideas are frameworks. They are missing the key component that we call the prime mover.

Bessler hinted at this in his book but I can never shake that feeling off when I am looking at these things.

I feel like I am looking at a great car, well designed with leather seats and brilliant tyres and fittings. I lift the bonnet up and there is no engine there and I realise that this brilliant car is going nowhere.

By the way I am hoping to pick a car up on Thursday that will get me back from the Moon with a bit of luck. I do hope its got an engine.

I would like to ask you a question though Fletcher about simulators in general.

As a rule is it fair to say that with any given design a reduction of power with an increase in accuracy is indicating a false potential for over unity?

In Algodoo when you hover over the accuracy setting it states -

A higher value allows for more accurate physics (faster motors, stiffer springs etc) but will be slower.

The highest value is 1200 but I usually type in 2400.

One thing that has crossed my mind is the thought that potentially Algodoo may be just as good or even better that WM2D if this number is just made very large. This is something that I have not yet explored. The simulations would obviously run very slow but Algodoo can be a lot more user friendly than WM2D for basic designs.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

Update.

I just tried my suggestion for Algodoo on one of the best over unity designs I have done. I took the highest level to 120000 a hundred times higher and guess what? It still worked!

Oh well WM2D all is forgiven.

Graham

[Sam Peppiatt]

What good is an oscillation? I think the problem with your simulator is; it was never programed for a gravity wheel. So, how could it ever simulate one---------------Sam

[eccentrically1]

If no one knows how a physical gravity wheel would look, then no one knows how to program a simulator for one.

[agor95]

If no one knows how a physical gravity wheel would look, then no one knows how to program a simulator for one.

That is a way of thinking which can be used on many subjects.

"That door is possibly locked, So there is no point in opening the door."

"There is no point so, Don't bother."

This is what one could call a negative downward spiral which results in less options than the opposite mode of thinking.

Individuals are building physical wheels that used the acceleration due to gravity as part of their design.
Also building mathematical models too implement within simulation.

Both contributing improvements one on the other.

You could call this an upward spiral of development and beats throwing designs out randomly.

Then watch them fall down flat.

Regards

[Fletcher]

... I would like to ask you a question though Fletcher about simulators in general.

As a rule is it fair to say that with any given design a reduction of power with an increase in accuracy is indicating a false potential for over unity? ...

I agree with just about all your observations in your full post Graham ..

Simulators are a great design tool, but they can give false-positives etc, especially in what we try to make them do - we need to wisely mitigate this if possible ..

Mostly we are operating at the fine edge of reason, and tolerances - as said by others sims weren't designed specifically for investigating OU/PM, we have adapted them - they can be reliable if their limitations are considered ..

I would say that as a matter of course build your sims at low accuracy resolution ( i.e. the step frames between calculations ) - then if you get something interesting at a low accuracy setting pump up the accuracy to stress-test it for robustness - if you had OU and it goes away then it is probably a frame to frame calculating issue, as has been discussed ( i.e. too coarse ) ..

However, I add the caveat - if you have a mechanism design that is truly torque asymmetric ( NET positive torque ) then the sim should imo be able to show this ( bottom up building ) - in which case pumping up the accuracy resolution will not make it evaporate - far from it, it would increase your confidence that it was reliably predicting a behaviour ..

Best ..

[agor95]

Hi Fletcher

Simulators are a great design tool, but they can give false-positives etc, especially in what we try to make them do - we need to wisely mitigate this if possible ..

Mostly we are operating at the fine edge of reason, and tolerances - as said by others sims weren't designed specifically for investigating OU/PM, we have adapted them - they can be reliable if their limitations are considered ..

I agree with your characterisation of simulators in general and the methods to find out how stable their results are by using slight variations is their initial settings.

Similar to weather forecasting and calculating the confidence level for the prediction.

Regards

[Roxaway59]

Thanks Fletcher and when it comes to checking some of these ideas out I appreciate your efforts.

I will keep up the search and take onboard your advice.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

Hi Fletcher I was thinking about what you have said about the simulators giving a false positive.

I'm the kind of person who try's to see the real issues clearly in my mind. I don't always succeed but I try to do it anyway.

On this issue of false positives I'm viewing it like a rounding off error. Like when you take Pi and round it off. The figure you end up with cant be a hundred percent accurate.

There are two things that strike me about this.

1) The scenarios of a non working wheel that works because of a rounding error and a working wheel that works because it doesn't have a rounding error (high accuracy) should be very different as the accuracy increases.

2) Because we are dealing with false positives at low accuracy it must also mean that a working wheel will not necessarily work on low accuracy. Therefore that would be an argument against starting on low accuracy.

The question must also be asked what level of accuracy is sufficient?

Graham