Hypothesis .. Raising GPE without using Law of Levers ? ..

[daxwc]

AP: The Mobile would long since have been found if patient effort had not been such a vanishing rarity. Rarely does the doubter make discoveries, for he holds the Truth to be an impossibility. Just read the words of Mark:-

Mark: "All things are possible to him who shall believe."

So - go to it - discover the Perpetuum Mobile!

It is all over AP that Bessler attributes the perpetual motion discovery to God and to do such you have to believe it possible. It is the belief that triggers its existence.

[daxwc]

Drawing from quantum physics and the observer effect, it posits that collective consciousness and individual belief can influence reality. The quantum world has reopened esoteric and mystical ideas, suggesting that the world might not be just what we see physically. The fact that birds navigate to it proves the quatum world bleeds into our physical reality.

You may not like the idea but it is a real possibility and part of physics.

[Gregory]

OK .. just to walk it back a bit - I have a basic philosophy or logic framework about B's. runners that I keep to - I am sure they were legit .. I think they were just like any engine today - they needed fuel before they could accelerate and do Work - for me that in-situ replenishing fuel source had to be from its hard connection to the earth's surface i.e. the earth's rotation and wobble gave the runner some momentum which it used and outputted again as Work as well as keeping itself asymmetrically OOB - to have a 'superior' positive OOB ( MT15 says it shows this ) ( n.b. since gravity force is conservative ) then the lever-weights had to be lifted and given GPE and this is turn produced the asymmetric torque - but this lifting had to be quick/sudden ( aka in a flash ), and low or no cost .. this required the intervention of a pulsed Prime Mover structure or Prime Mover structures plural - these were located in the outer regions of the wheels ( all went around with the wheel ) and they took up plenty of space which is why his wheels got larger and larger etc - and from this freely available 'fuel source' and the Prime Mover pulsing the wheel the overbalance was able to grow ( i.e. a positive feedback loop was established that grew the imbalance ) - this makes them "dynamic" wheels and not the normal "passive" weight shifting wheels that fail ..

I'm not entirely sure, but I also believe that Bessler's wheel could be based on some real physics phenomena, it's just not discovered/understood yet. I agree that it needed some kind of fuel, but I think this fuel might be quite a different thing than the fuel sources we use and understand today. Is it related to inertia somehow? Or related to manipulation with multiple reference frames, or something else? Or is it more like a sequence of movements, a process you have to apply just in the right order to work?
A real mystery...

But personally I don't think Earth's rotation is involved. The angular velocity of Earth is only 0.000696 RPM, which is still a significant tangential speed at the radius. However, Earth's rotational speed doesn't really change day by day, or unimaginably tiny amount, tidal effects are very tiny for that. It changes on a longer timescale. But I don't know if an experiment ever attempted to measure a daily change by a precision device?

Hhmm... tidal effects, humidity and air pressure changes, like atmos clock? (But those things are also tiny)

Anyhoo .. the more dynamic and aggressive it's athleticism the more net positive torque was produced, and the quicker it accelerated from a standing start or small push etc ..

But here's the thing .. the thing why I am not sure a sim program will be able to simulate the mechanics - because as we saw with the Roberval and spring "variator", we put Energy into it - it conserved all the energy even tho the wheels system COM / COG was always located to the right of vertical from the axle - ok, we know it is a dynamic system with lots of moving parts which is hard to keep track of in our heads - but the sim says no extra energy is gained from the input of one-time only energy input i.e. no further energy was put into the system !

* Now, my horizontally shifted cart and swinger sims showed that pumping and dumping the carts with Energy ( f x d ) did NOT give any free lunches - Work Done ( f x d ) equaled the sum of total KE's ( KE1 + KE2 ) plus GPE gained by the swingers - zero sum game at best ..

However,, when the pump and dump input was from impulse sources ( f x t = m v ) then WEEP was violated imo, and the Summed Energy ( totaling KE1 + KE2 + GPE ) was greater than the WD ( f x d ) .. the key is that the pseudo fuel source had to come from a momentum / impulse source ( f x t ) and not from E = WD ( f x d ) ..

I believe your swinger cart experiment is really an interesting idea. I might go back some time later and play with the math myself... WEEP violation would be a pretty big deal...

* So why do I think wm2d and other sims may not be able to simulate these relationships and show a net wheel gain ? - because my sim lives in my laptop - it's frame of reference ( FOR ) is the screen " environment " - IF the true Energy source for a runner came from momentum from the earth connection then how can the program simulate that repeating input accurately from its artificial FOR ? - that's why I have my doubts about what it is showing / allowing, even tho the spring powered variator is Energy based ( not impulse or momentum f x t ), and there is no further 'replenishing pseudo fuel source' to keep the dynamism / excitation growing and gaining as a true runner did, imo ..

You're right with that. If Earth's rotation is anyhow included, then sim software will not be able to go there into the rabbit's hole.
But, if Earth's rotation is not a factor, like I believe... Then sim software will be still legit.

[Gregory]

A reflective moment ..

We have all been trying to reverse-engineer whatever mechanics B. used to build a runner - yet no one has managed to come up with the right combination, coordinated in the right way .. he was the first, and the one and only, so far - we know it can be done - it's what keeps us going ..

*** To focus I always try to ask myself .. what is the problem are we trying to solve ?

Right, great question to focus on! It's important to ask the right questions.

The problem to be solved imho... is either a free lift, a method to gain both momentum and energy, or a method to draw energy from "an unseen/invisible reservoir". Quite a challenge... approaching the impossible.

But it's certainly not about making the weights go somewhat further from the axle on one side and closer on the other. Bessler also mentioned about the futility and misunderstanding of this usual mindset... Meaning that potential energy (including GPE) is only a temporary storage, and not something else. Meaning that the real driving force which replenishes GPE has to be something else.

[Gregory]

Maybe my 90s could be used for pump and dumping.
Called the 90s since so much in it are 90 degrees in relation to each other.

Not a runner, but gets quite shaky in the last part, when i increase the mass.
Keep in mind, it is in a game, and not a perfect 3d simulator. While it does full 2 turns when starting the simulation, it do have a very favorable start, and it does not do 2 full turns when i increase the mass.

Still, quite shaky. If it works in the real world, nah. Not as good as in game i think.

The 90s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_dByDZdx3Q

Hey Kattla,

That's a really nice 3d simulation.
Did you do this in Unity, Godot, or Blender, or something else?

[daxwc]

A point of mass at the equator, on the Earth's surface moves at about roughly 1037 miles per hour, which is the tangential speed. Meanwhile, the Earth's angular velocity is about 0.000696 revolutions per minute, indicating how quickly the Earth rotates in terms of the angle it sweeps out per unit of time. So, while the tangential speed at the equator is high due to the large radius of the Earth, the angular velocity is low because the Earth takes a full day to complete one rotation.

So if one can figure out how to break the frame of reference in a moving car then that would be harvesting the cars momentum. Then you can figure out how to eliminate the car and harvest earth’s rotation.

So what would Fletcher’s Sim harvesting? Seems to be asymmetry in inertia

[johannesbender]

I am not sure where I got the notion that it came to him from God in a dream. Maybe I heard it from someone here.

Oh yeah, Bessler was a genius. I think that this will be quite apparent when the solution is presented. I am thinking that his name may be cleared.

Its something that people spread around on the web , you know the game you wisper a word in someones ear , then they do the same for the next person in the row , then the final person utters the word he was told but 90 percent of the time its the wrong words , thats how these things happen tend to happen .

And i also agree , i truely hope that his legend could be cleared from the fraudster dogma , i would take great joy in rubbing it some type of peoples faces .

[Kattla]

That's a really nice 3d simulation.
Did you do this in Unity, Godot, or Blender, or something else?

Thanks.

I do it in the game "Besiege". Not sure what 3d engine it uses.
I like it since it lets me test stuff in 3D instead of the the old 2d (drawings). And no, i don't consider it to be perfect , since after all it is just meant as a game, not a physics simulator.
It is just horrible for doing things like scissor lifts/storkbills. They just becomes too heavy.
For wheels, kinda ok, but compared to real life, it seems weights fall too slow , and with very little friction (it do have (air)drag i think) , stuff that swings sometimes seem to have a life on their own.

It did however let me make a runner, which also seemed to work in Algodoo, but not in the real world. I tested it twice, not working in the real world, but maybe three's the charm. Doubt it though. (And no, it's not in my videos).

[Kattla]

Well, i did mention a runner in the last post.
Here is that video. I suspect as previously said, it is a simulation flaw. It's about hitting a sweet spot too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbKkT5zS3PA


Back to this topic though, here's another sim i did yesterday. This one with the swingers of Fletchers wheel , and using the perpendicular weights to move them. Don't have one way bearings in the game, and making a ratchet would probaly triple the weights.
In the sim, the weights used to move the swingers seems to pretty much balance out the benefit of the swingers movement. Still, it do seem one could maybe use smaller weights since the swingers have forward movement when they are at the top and bottom.

And here's that video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNTwlFag_LM


And yes, i know they are just simple obs rips, no fancy editing. Its just sometimes images or videos are better at describing then words.

[Fletcher]

Bessler certainly believed that he knew how his wheel worked and he never gave the impression that his wheel was being powered by something other than the force of gravity. At least that’s the impression that his writings gave me. Absolutely - he tells us straight it is an OOB ( from gravity force ) wheel .. it's the physics of how it kept in Net overbalance/torque that interests me most ..

Bessler could have been mistaken of course but he did continue to improved on the design. That is something that only usually works if you understand what you are doing. No doubt about it - he knew why it worked ( it was simple and easy to understand the mechanics of ) - he made them bi-directional and said he could adjust the power and speed, and size, given enough time - that means he knew exactly why and how it had asymmetric torque, and what mechanics generated and sustained it ..

He could however of been mistaken about how his wheel was working and I seem to remember one of the witnesses commenting that if they could find out what he had done then they would be more able to improve on the design bringing into question some of Besslers abilities. It was Wolff saying if others with better skills were able to have at it, who knew what its potential could be ? - but Wolff didn't know how it worked, like all the rest of us .. we have to solve the puzzle before we can say whether it had more potential than B. achieved .. law of diminishing returns - it was in B's. interests to have it as powerful as was practical for a sale, so I believe he was pushing its limits back then ..

What powers Besslers wheel has turned into a two horse race.

It was either powered by a combination of forces that are not suppose to be able to turn a wheel indefinitely or it was powered by energy such as the earths rotation which is also not suppose to be possible. I gonna say both ;7) - forces of objects in rotation, because they are unavoidable, while also attached to the earth satellite - note I leave the door open - just to say, the earth revolves and we are all familiar with centrifugal forces, and it also is attached to the earths surface in one Frame Of Reference ( FOR ) - if you remember your first introduction to Newton's Laws then we all know that when a object is dropped it moves towards the earth surface, and, the earth surface moves towards it - so both are in play as far as I am concerned - in short inertia plays its role ..

I do think though that the relationship between should it work and the power of the thing are closely connected because if a wheel has a lot of power as Besslers did then the thing that was making that happen would be easy to spot. B's. runners were relatively weak - only about 100 Watts ( one light bulb - their energy density was small ) - however we know from witness accounts that they had phenomenal acceleration, up to working rpm in only one or two turns - my magic teleportation D track sims showed just how much overbalance was required to have that kind of acceleration - clearly it was no accidental artifact byproduct but fully calculable and able to be maximised, and as you say very easy to spot, once known ..

So if Bessler was wrong in his belief then the blindingly obvious thing that was creating the torque was not doing what he thought it was doing. B. gives us a first bite at the cheery in MT13 ( 13 being of religious significance to some ) - he quips that it would run good is someone were up at D to "like lightening" ( suddenly / quickly / with ease ) lift the weights up - he says it doesn't work because there is too much friction - he is wrong about that ! - we know it has too much back-torque, but he thinks of it as friction .. then in MT15 he shows us 3 different methods on the same wheel of showing the "superior" overbalance that MT13 demonstrates and is neeeded - they all are like MT13 and need rapid easy lifting .. so we need a method to lightly throw ( without much effort ) a weight high, to create the sustained torque OOB ! ..

You brought into question if WM2D would be able to simulate what you are proposing. One obvious flaw in the simulators is that they don’t take into account that everything is moving around us as standard. Right ! - good for most situations ..

The problem that we have always faced is an over dependence on simulators because in theory they can save a lot of time and money. They do - they are a tool, like a hammer is a tool in your toolbox - but if I'm building a shed my hammer is useful and time saving but it can't plan and design the shed for me ;7) - and so your sim can't plan and design your wheel for you either - but you can use it wisely ..

I think one of our sayings as we try to do this should be – if Bessler did it, we can do it. One I say to myself regularly as well ..

Graham

[Fletcher]

Likely 99 percent of designs by clever people and chasers all alike have shown 1 main problem however not many accept it , in physics this problem is accepted though , its shown and seen almost everywhere and undeniable .

Yet i feel like some people who believe that bessler was no fraud , actually believe he did not know jack about what he did , yet historical accounts of the development and details he shared shows the contrary , he said clearly and boldly "i know why the rest failed" , and still some people out there think they can ignore the problem while we ironically know why the designs fail .

To my little knowledge and in my opinion just one problem has ever been identified by most if not all .

Right jb .. He KNEW why all the others had been wrong ! - and so do we - we haven't yet hit on his method of lifting weights back up easily ( physics found in 'nature' ) which would make all previous dead-ducks quack ..

[Fletcher]

... I'm not entirely sure, but I also believe that Bessler's wheel could be based on some real physics phenomena, it's just not discovered/understood yet. His answer to the perpetual motion puzzle was found in nature he said .. it is there to be found again ..

I agree that it needed some kind of fuel, but I think this fuel might be quite a different thing than the fuel sources we use and understand today. Is it related to inertia somehow? YES, imo .. Or related to manipulation with multiple reference frames, or something else? Or is it more like a sequence of movements, a process you have to apply just in the right order to work? Yes to that as well ..


A real mystery... My simple logic - impulse = momentum aka f x t = m v => mass is inertia :. f x t = inertia x velocity - the cart swingers gained free GPE because of inertia changes, imo ..

But personally I don't think Earth's rotation is involved. The angular velocity of Earth is only 0.000696 RPM, which is still a significant tangential speed at the radius. However, Earth's rotational speed doesn't really change day by day, or unimaginably tiny amount, tidal effects are very tiny for that. It changes on a longer timescale. But I don't know if an experiment ever attempted to measure a daily change by a precision device? I agree, it may have some small bearing, but when an object falls to earth so the earth falls to it .. i.e. proportional inertias ..

Hhmm... tidal effects, humidity and air pressure changes, like atmos clock? (But those things are also tiny) Correct, and as my mass teleportation D track sims showed they can in no way account for the huge acceleration of his wheels .. that one thing is why I eventually threw out ambient environmental forces as the Prime Mover years ago ..


I believe your swinger cart experiment is really an interesting idea. I might go back some time later and play with the math myself... WEEP violation would be a pretty big deal... The 'proposed' WEEP violations is imo about changing inertia's in the relationships, because basically I believe that inertia is the key component in his Prime Mover and runners ..

I would very much like it if you did run your own math on my cart and swinger pump and dump sims Gregory - since it is the basis of my theory for a free lifting of weights a second going over by you might give it better credibility ( assuming your math result is the same as mine ) ..

You're right with that. If Earth's rotation is anyhow included, then sim software will not be able to go there into the rabbit's hole.
But, if Earth's rotation is not a factor, like I believe... Then sim software will be still legit. Especially if its rotation is just a minor effect and the earth has another important contribution to make - he did put a spinning top in the TP, and a Globe of the earth is prominent in his AP frontispiece after all ..

[Fletcher]

It's important to ask the right questions.

The problem to be solved imho... is either a free lift, a method to gain both momentum and energy, or a method to draw energy from "an unseen/invisible reservoir". Well summarized ! .. Quite a challenge... approaching the impossible.

But it's certainly not about making the weights go somewhat further from the axle on one side and closer on the other.

Bessler also mentioned about the futility and misunderstanding of this usual mindset... Meaning that potential energy (including GPE) is only a temporary storage, and not something else. Meaning that the real driving force which replenishes GPE has to be something else. RIGHT !

[Fletcher]

Hey Gregory .. thanks again for the "fix" to the sim swingers - more than good enough to carry on with .. however I do have another small issue that I think you could bend your mind to if agreeable - it relates back to something dax said earlier in the thread and I kinda fobbed him off a little - I had been banging on about the DT engravings showing double pendulums etc yet I only simmed one with my swingers - I gave some explanation which was correct in one sense but the reality is that when I make double opposing pendulums they often behave erratically and spit the dummy quckly - yet for me and my experiments it is quite important that they don't, especially for the next phase of investigating the next generation ( upgrade ) MOI changing Prime Movers - I did have one workaround that is reliable but I lose other facets I want to retain ..

I wonder if you could take a look and see if you have a workaround or fix I haven't thought of or tried ..

Will post something up in the next few days - cheers ..

[Fletcher]

@ all ( especially dax ) ..

Re .. Easy sudden/rapid lifting of weights theory ..

What empirical evidence is there for that hypothesis or an internally generated lifting force ?

Borlach and Gartner looked in on the Merseburg wheel tests ..

Borlack made an engraving of what they observed, and comments were written about what they saw ..

Paraphrased - they said one wheel support post ( floor to ceiling supports ) lifted up and set down again as the wheel turned - because they saw a crack open in the support post and close again - IOWs, as the crack opened ( because the support post lifted up ) they could see unexposed interior showing - they labeled it in their engraving .. it was no doubt one reason for their theory that the support contained a rope pull up into the ceiling and down into another room where someone was pulling on the rope etc etc ..

B. copied their engraving into his DT , BUT made some alterations - he included two opposed crank handles to the wheel axle and some other minor things .. what he didn't do was address the opening and closing crack in any way, shape, or form ! - he avoided it completely .. a magicians deflection ..

For a support post to have a crack in it that opened and closed repeatedly then there is an interior lifting force causing the support post to lift vertically periodically - and they were heavy wheels so it was not a little upward lift but a generous and swift one that forced the whole wheel upwards ! - but the upward force show was usually constrained by it's connection to the ceiling - and is why imo B. never displayed wheels in moveable crates or trolleys where the support posts weren't anchored to and didn't reach the ceiling ..

Something to think about regarding a Prime Movers role in generating a lifting force ..