Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[eccentrically1]

A physical build has 100% accuracy. There's never been a false, or true positive PM.

A simulation's result is a combination of the accuracy matched to the computing power you have.

If you get a positive result, it's probably from a mismatch of those things (objects passing through others), or, the input of your design doesn't reflect real world conditions.
Fletcher and T79 sims in the B's possible afflatus thread (pages 161-170ish) with "magic forces" to lift the weights to try to show how his wheels accelerated so quickly are a good example of that GIGO.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... ef#p206519

the sims start on 164

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... start=2445

It won't be false positive because the software has a glitch. The software would be completely useless for serious work if it had glitches that allowed unreal world conditions.

[Roxaway59]

Hi eccentrically1 yes the real math's is always in the real build.

When it comes to using simulators I think I'm at the point where I can simulate ideas with caution and have a good idea if its something worth further investigation or even a real build.

Graham

[agor95]

Hi eccentrically

A physical build has 100% accuracy. There's never been a false, or true positive PM.

I can appreciate your view point and it hints at confidence in the results produced.

A physical build can be 100% accurate. However if the build is of a chaotic device then the outcome is different but accurate each time.
Therefore the result it produces has a low confidence of being repeatable or predictive.

So a physical build can have the same characteristics of a mathematical model or a computer simulation.
When the system is close to a chaotic region of operation.

The best we can do is to keep away from such regions in all three modes of modelling.

As a result people use reset like operations or convergent paths to choke out increasing variation in the system.

P.S. We live on the knife edge of chaos

Regards

[Fletcher]

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.

First off I'm not a programmer Graham - and I am largely self-taught on WM having made use of the on-line video tutorials ( Y-Tube ) and the tutorial reference booklet which I will post up today for you - this sharpened my skill level in using the program reliably and realistically, and gave me a greater appreciation of its capabilities and likely limitations for what we here use it for ..

If you remember MrV, he often described it as "rounding errors" giving false-positives, and that is one way to describe it in layman's terms - technically it is a program artifact because you can set the program for Euler fast approximate calculation or Kutta-Merson slower more accurate calculation - then you can manually increase the iteration steps and number of decimal places it calculates to etc - iow's there is plenty of flexibility for a trade-off between accuracy and expediency of time .. basically however sim programs calculate discreet steps ( individual frames ) when each and every time all things are recalculated between frames - this is where overlap errors ( spitting objects apart with KE ) can occur with fast velocities at contact collision points and depending on the elasticity for the object you have selected - then we have legitimate computational rounding up or down ( your using Pi is an example ) which should be minimised at high accuracy resolution ..

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?

I tend to always start at 200 fps as a matter of course and then adjust up and down to stress-test a models behaviour for reliability - if I am making an animation for posting I often have to decrease the accuracy to get enough of it into the animation - so for me its a case of adjusting down to where it still works reliably ..

A simulation's result is a combination of the accuracy matched to the computing power you have.

If you get a positive result, it's probably from a mismatch of those things (objects passing through others), or, the input of your design doesn't reflect real world conditions.

Fletcher and T79 sims in the B's possible afflatus thread (pages 161-170ish) with "magic forces" to lift the weights to try to show how his wheels accelerated so quickly are a good example of that GIGO.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... ef#p206519

the sims start on 164

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... start=2445

It won't be false positive because the software has a glitch. The software would be completely useless for serious work if it had glitches that allowed unreal world conditions.

Graham .. the point of my sims that ECC1 mentions above was to show LARGER-THAN-LIFE dramatic effect just how much A-symmetric torque is in-fact required to get the sort of accelerations that B's. wheels were reported to have had ..

Paraphrased, B said his wheels would run as long as they could not "find" their PQ position ( stay out of the Center of Gravity ) - this is the position of least GPE, directly below the axle .. the important part is that ALL WHEELS have a PQ position ( or positions plural, if multi-sectored ) - even a flywheel isn't 'perfectly' balanced ..

==> BUT .. B's wheels could not FIND it / them - i.e. they "looked for it", like every other wheel - but their A-symmetric torque factor was so great that they swung on by and could never return to that position once passed by ( like the sims I did ), imo ..

And our sims showed that they weren't just-a-little-bit A-symmetric, marginal subject to accuracy settings, wispy smoke rings that might blow away in the wind etc ..

==> they were in-your-face, aggressive, impossible-to-miss A-symmetric ( NET Positive Torque ) wheels ..


So imo we don't need to worry about accuracy and rounding errors IF we can latch-on-to that " over-the-top " A-symmetry Generating Arrangement ..

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

[Roxaway59]

Fletcher we are on the same page with your sim demonstration of the torque that Besslers wheel must have had that's why I liked what you did.

It demonstrates more vividly that what ever it was Bessler did it wasn't a meek and mild reaction but a beautifully smooth but powerful one that was able to regulate and not run out of control.

I sometimes think about that when I am working on an idea that is obviously weak but hoping to increase its strength if I can get it working.

It sounds simple. A machine in the form of a wheel that can constantly keep its weights out of balance as it turns.

Graham

[Sam Peppiatt]

How difficult could it be.
I asked myself, almost ten years ago now----------------------Sam

[Roxaway59]

Sam I sometimes play chess and trying to make a working gravity wheel is like playing chess with the laws of physics. Every move you make he has a counter move. The best I ever did against the computer left hardly any pieces on the board but he just out maneuvered me.

Think about Bessler. He came up with a move that outsmarted physics and left people scratching their heads for three hundred years and the move was simple. The move was simple? Really?

Graham

[Sam Peppiatt]

Graham,
Chess; I could never grasp the strategy of it. It's beyond my capability. You are a smart guy! Right; the wheel is probably fairly simple. Maybe sophisticated, would be a more accurate description of it-----------------Sam

[preoccupied]

So I take it that in the simulation that the L shaped lever is not part of the wheel but a pendulum that pushes the weight out of place. Focusing on this aspect of it, if you put the strings at an angle to the bar that holds the weight, it will try to hang the weight to one side, and when it does this it can go up on the lever losing MA and this could allow the pendulum to push the weight to the side some more. The trade in forces in this version would be the L shaped levers length against the weight. If the weight on the red bar can push the L shaped lever into place then the L shaped lever closely mechanically to it would lose being held there when the weight on the bar rises some along its lever. I don't know what the difference of this would be to just blocking the weight with a peg or a bar or ramp to move it to the side. I guess it would be better like this than a ramp because the hanging weight would be moving up and away from the L shaped lever and a ramp would have the weight moving up against it. SO the L shaped lever in this drawing would work like a moving ramp and while the weight is lifting it is suspending on this L shaped ramp some rather than moving up it.

[preoccupied]

Here is another MS paint sketch. Bodabing. It looks like the L shaped lever would be smacked from a weight falling downward when the L shaped lever is pushed to the left. I think it's heavier, the weight force, when the weight is suspended on two strings and when it is on one string it doesn't have as much weight downwards. Is it true?

[Roxaway59]

Hi preoccupied, I sometimes look at ideas like the one you are showing but I think it would be better for you if you experimented with Algodoo. If nothing else its easier to do good drawings of your ideas but of course you can also do fairly good simulations too.

Graham

[ArchCalc]

WM has saved me a lot of time and expense. I have a test wheel on ball bearings and I've tested the behavior of both.
Like screw a weight near the perimeter and let it fall. It ends up exactly the same on WM. Done the same with weighted levers. With friction and without. It shows the difference.

[Roxaway59]

When I first started using WM2D I got use to the way certain builds would behave then I would come across the same one as a real build. I was surprised at how similar they were.

Graham

[Fletcher]

... trying to make a working gravity wheel is like playing chess with the laws of physics.

Think about Bessler. He came up with a move that outsmarted physics and left people scratching their heads for three hundred years and the move was simple. The move was simple? Really?

... the wheel is probably fairly simple. Maybe sophisticated, would be a more accurate description of it ...

I like both your descriptions of the relative simplicity of Bessler's PM machine, lol ..

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” —Leonardo da Vinci

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” —Albert Einstein

“The ability to simplify means to eliminate the unnecessary, so that the necessary may speak.” —Hans Hofman


For those interested .. over the last few weeks I've dipped into Frank Edwards 1956 book "Strangest of All" ( on-line ) and his apparently unsubstantiated comments attributed to Karl about the inner workings of B's. wheel that most of us are familiar with .. Part of that investigation to find his source was to search the forum for the many discussions about it over the years .. in one of those threads JC made the comment that maybe Frank Edwards had embellished something from Rupert T. Goulds 1928 book " Oddities: A Book of Unexplained Facts " wrt Chapter V .. ORFFYREUS’ WHEEL - I found it on-line and copied down the text file and cleaned it up and put it a docx file format ..

Imo it's a good read ( I'm sure I've read it previously ) and it was a nice refresher - see attachment below for my file version if you also want to read it - download and change file extension from xls back to docx as the forum doesn't accept my original docx format ..

No, I did not see anything that Gould said that resembled what Frank Edwards wrote ..

But here are some of my thoughts about simplicity anyway ..

B's. first Gera wheel was only 4 inches wide - that's about the distance between your thumb and first finger extended apart - there was no Z axis movement - you could call them 2D like a sim program ..

With simplicity in mind, in JC's MT B. says, and I remind ourselves ..

* zusammen gehangten principle - together hang principle ..
* correct handle-construction ..

* prime mover ..
* something special behind storksbills ..

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

[preoccupied]

I made one more ms Paint drawing. In the starred figures does it give a 45 degrees of positive torque there? Then it can have 8 wheels like it working together to have 360 degrees of positive torque. It's supposed to push the L shaped lever up to where it is hanging straight down and then be pulled straight up and away and also to the right by the L shaped lever. It's being lifted against a wedge up top on its connection and up a ramp from the L shaped lever and this should reduce its weight. Good work Fletcher. Very interesting.