Are You a builder?

[primemignonite]

What "drama" Scott?

I'm not aware of any.

Where's it at?

If there is something happening that I'm not aware of, well, then let it's on-lookers act as fair judges as-to the quality and craft of the source creating it . . . whatever it may be . . . if any.

And while I have your attention, I would like to add the following.

The "Ignore" feature, as you have provided, is a work of sheerest genius, Scott.

It took me all of two years before I even noticed it, but now it is my constant companion, my finger being ever at-the-ready for the exploiting of it. THREE individuals are so-far buttoned on that list.

Since you changed servers awhile back, the whole site is just a surpassingly fine thing, being fast and snappy of action and never better!

And also, sometimes, use of the "Disallow Contact" option really puts the kabosh on the very worst of the scurrying pests of insolent perdition, no?

Now, I've used this feature in only ONE EXTREME CASE, a case honestly of cheekiest, utterly in-your-face, north-of-America type abrasiveness, and incomparable, coarsest offensiveness of manner, as well as of spirit!

The other two are rather good chaps actually, and are doubtless wholly redeemable simply for the asking, by being in-touch. They have avoided the worst of all possible digital condemnations, and it goes greatly in their favor, this.

(Both of you, please do ask; I don't hold grudges nor remember anything for very long at all, and, absolutely DO abhor personal rancor. I am both affable and cheery, and am just brimming-over with gracious forgiveness.)

While all is working way past splendidly, Scott, might it be possible of doing to extend the two escape options' operation to the "Topic Window", so that even tiny glimpses of offending parties might be obviated, and thereby bliss be made complete, and whole?

All right. I think that covers everything to-date.

(Please, if you will, do let me know it I forgot anything?)

Thank you, and as-ever, marveling and admiring from too great a distance, I remain

Your Humble Servant

James

[Borderline "flowery" - watch it!]

[path_finder]

The perfect kit for the gravity wheel builders..
http://www.girdersandgears.com/amb.html

[ME]

Where are the builders, those that actually test by hands on trial and error research? ... I would like to compile a list of those that actually get their hands dirty testing deigns. ... I apologize to any who feel they fit this category and were missed. Please let me know and you will be added.

As a software guy I will not blindly make wheels of fortune which could not work in concept or simulation. That's the same when writing a relative complex application-software without proper design: If you're not careful enough you end up with doing more debugging than adding real functionality.
The one wheel I made did not convince me to proceed that path, because the effort I put in was not worth the lessons I learned in making it; although it did improve the feel for moving weights. As a dutch person I have to say that non-working physical wheels are not cost-effective.

The few green dots I have, I did earn with (hopefully) clarifying animated simulations. But even simulations are not everything, because after many different designs I certainly felt locked up in small design-variations and thinking in small circles. This is the main reason that I stayed away for almost 3 years.

Creating a working gravity wheel is more than just 'getting your hands dirty'. It starts with inspiration and design. When this foundation is good, it all comes down to proper attention (and some transpiration) to create something physical - but in my opinion that should be the lesser part of it.

I guess I will not be on your list?

Intent is to possibly gather on a sub- forum...

...as a sub-forum of BesslerWheel.com I hope!
That could be a nice feature. Perhaps a separate (hyper?-)physics-forum is also a possibility.

It would be a great loss if you are planning to move away from here, and drag some valuable people with you.
For instance, I just learned about the buzzsaw-wheel, and I'm interested in the obstacles you faced in recreating this. Because with the skills I have, I can make a program which could find the best configuration in gears, layouts, amount of weights etc. although my time is scarce.

[docfeelsgood]

ME ;

I for one would be most interested to see what a program of yours could do with this design ["the buzzsaw"] .

It would seem that the heavy hitters here cannot fathom the principle . IE Fletcher "cant wrap his head around it" .
Jim Mich. cant understand it , although he has no problem analisizing every one else idea that comes down the pike at a glance .
Herr Von Lieven who just seemed to drop off the face of the earth after scrutinizing it . Dr What claims that it's due to Hans health issues , but it doesen't seem to have affected Hans activity on "OU" !!!

I'm sure there are others , but i have only named a few . if i were you I wouldn"t count on much help here as these so called "Heavy Hitters" are unable to call it their own original idea !!!

That's just my take on the situation , might be wrong ,, But I don't think so !!! Good Luck .

Regards , "Doc."

[Fletcher]

Not quite doc - I really can't see how it must work [get my head around it] - I have my prejudices to get past like everybody else & in that way I'm no different from them, but I'd be really happy for someone to solve this riddle - hopefully with a good experimental premiss or sim or even math [though I consider that a low order proof on its own] - if that's you or ME then fantastic & the more people who are prepared to work thru the buzz saw wheel the more chance of turning over the right stone.

[DrWhat]

I don't want to speak for Hans, but in my mind there are often mildly promising ideas/designs that show a glimmer of hope they could lead somewhere, but sometimes there is so much effort involved in constructing them that that glimmer is not enough to justify the work involved.

There has been no contact between Hans and myself for many months. Hans did dedicate a lot of time (many many hours and intense concentration) to design his own buzz saw modification. And kudos to him. We had several meetings discussing this. The design was entirely his. I was prepared to fund a build. My view was that as ingenious as it was I wasn't prepared to fund a build, also because my financial commitments had changed.

I think that if a brilliant idea emerges Hans would be a great asset to examine it thoroughly.

[docfeelsgood]

Fletcher ;
Hang in there , one of these days the idea will hit you sooo hard your Great Grandmum will feel it !!!!!

I hope for your sake Boiler Bill keeps his film supply updated to record the glorious occasion for posterity .

Regards .

[Bessler_Supporter]

Not quite doc - I really can't see how it must work [get my head around it] - I have my prejudices to get past like everybody else & in that way I'm no different from them, but I'd be really happy for someone to solve this riddle - hopefully with a good experimental premiss or sim or even math [though I consider that a low order proof on its own] - if that's you or ME then fantastic & the more people who are prepared to work thru the buzz saw wheel the more chance of turning over the right stone.

Fletch,
For as much as math has helped to build our society, I have seen little support for it.
It is easy enough to do the math and post it. But in reality, I don't think people care. It could be why be get your hopes up ?
I think this is the reason people are dismissive about most ideas. And math is subjective. I've been surprised by that.
Of course, leave it to a fool like myself to say I could post all the math you would like and the explanations, but doubt it would matter.
Why ? You probably are lucky enough to have a family and more important things to do than to take the time to consider the math. I think it is that way with most people. Even John Collins prefers a vacation to posting a clue he might have solved. Wonder why he couldn't have taken a few moments ?

edited to add;
It has been said before, the secret to being popular is to ignore math. I've pretty much found that to be true.

[Fletcher]

Hey B_S .. I have nothing against math, used it many times during my careers & lifetime - but in this field I hardly trust it - I have seen some math evangelists try to win an argument with pages of math & sometimes it comes down to who can shout loudest & longest - math often follows physical proof of something i.e. forensic accounting by the number jockeys - in the field of physics & physicists math is required as part of theorem often before proof is sought & found - then the builders & experimenters devise & build an experiment to prove the theory supported by the math - in this quest while mathematical tools are useful they by themselves can still be misleading without a sound competency to use them &/or physical proof to validate the math - since I have seen so many abstract ideas wither-on-the-vine without a way to physically test them that I now cut-to-the-chase so to speak - especially when we are talking about a simple gravity wheel whose principle Bessler said could be seen in nature & with kids playing in the street - that means there is already a physical model of the principle in existence & I'm not sure a kid would know the full blown math :7)

[Bessler_Supporter]

It appears that this forum and its new generation of members is become more of a home for armchair theorists who post pages of debate over issues of physics and related matters.

Where are the builders, those that actually test by hands on trial and error research? Members who believe that Bessler was not a fraud and attempt to build a machine using their own innovative resources, not necessarily attempting to duplicate Bessler's wheels other than the fact that it ran.

I would like to compile a list of those that actually get their hands dirty testing deigns. Here are examples of members on my starter list that I would like to add to. Most of these named are are already on my contact list.

ABHammer, Fletcher, Jim_Mich, underdog, mickegg, unbalanced, PStroud,
Turulato, Dave Roberts, James kelly. Patrick, Graham, Dusty (OverUnity). i-ron (OverUnity) Charlie (OverUnity) Larry C (OverUnity)

I apologize to any who feel they fit this category and were missed. Please let me know and you will be added.

Intent is to possibly gather on a sub- forum that avoids theoretical topics and could care less about e=mc2 or if gravity is faster than light.

Ralph

I'm an engineer, sorry.

[murilo]

``rlortie wrote:
It appears that this forum and its new generation of members is become more of a home for armchair theorists who post pages of debate over issues of physics and related matters.

Where are the builders, those that actually test by hands on trial and error research? Members who believe that Bessler was not a fraud and attempt to build a machine using their own innovative resources, not necessarily attempting to duplicate Bessler's wheels other than the fact that it ran.

I would like to compile a list of those that actually get their hands dirty testing deigns. Here are examples of members on my starter list that I would like to add to. Most of these named are are already on my contact list.

ABHammer, Fletcher, Jim_Mich, underdog, mickegg, unbalanced, PStroud,
Turulato, Dave Roberts, James kelly. Patrick, Graham, Dusty (OverUnity). i-ron (OverUnity) Charlie (OverUnity) Larry C (OverUnity)

I apologize to any who feel they fit this category and were missed. Please let me know and you will be added.

Intent is to possibly gather on a sub- forum that avoids theoretical topics and could care less about e=mc2 or if gravity is faster than light.

Ralph``


BS wrote: ``I'm an engineer, sorry.``

-------------------------------------------------------------

I write: I'm not an engineer, sorry.
All best! Murilo

[DrWhat]

Murilo, you can add me to that list although constructions are on hold for the moment.

[path_finder]

Dear Murilo,
How many shots must we post before to be considered as a builder?

[murilo]

Path... not sure if I reached your question, but let's try!
I don't know... it will depend...
A NICE shot will be enough, so as 1000 fails... ( 'nice' = definitive PM )
Personally I do understand the pressure of a ''good idea'' and I know that there is no guaranty while just in paper, of screen.
1000 fails will teach more that a good pure idea shot.
All ''try builders'' class of this forum MUST understand to the others.
As another class, some will have building skills 100 timer smaller than their idea conception skills. :(: This is wonderful and terrible, but true! (:(
What bore me more are those first instant aggressive destroyers that arrive against one, even if they can not show ideas from themselves. They just don't know what is deal to ''crude ideas''. :):
Better is to keep ignored.
Cheers!
Muliro

[ME]

-This late reply could have been a new topic, but let's just hide it in here for now-

ME ;
I for one would be most interested to see what a program of yours could do with this design ["the buzzsaw"] .

That's actually quite easy for anyone who knows how to put the required formula's into a spreadsheet.

First you have to consider all the parameters. Put all your formula's in one column. And calculate the torque or CoG for each angle for the full 360 degrees it turns, and finally produce a total torque. This torque should be positive in the direction of the wheel, but most of the time it will be negative and limiting towards 0.
Now copy all the formula's to the other columns, and randomize the input parameters; Best thing is to add-up an error-value in respect to the first column.
Then find the column with the best torque, and copy it's parameters to the first column, and repeat this over and over (a very easy macro will save you from RSI here). After a while it should find the optimal parameter solution for the given formula's.
This is a Monte-Carlo kind of survival-of-the-fittest-parameter.

As I understand the Buzzsaw, the only parameters are the slot-angle and starting point; and perhaps the amount of slots for the inside and the outside wheel.

I do not think the BuzzSaw will work (as I understand it), because it is of a static design - as is the case with 99% of all PM-designs.

---
Perhaps a bit premature, but with this method I've currently found a wheel-design which unexpectedly has an optimal-repetition of about 119 degrees, instead of a hopefull 180. So this new design could run even better with 3 weight than the expected 2.
-but I'm not yet to call this a positive find-
(that's btw. the reason I checked in: to see if I was second)