Computer Simulation...

[John doe]

(snip)

So you have to find an interaction unexplained by conventional science to find PM...

I don't disagree with that, but I would suggest that such an interaction could possibly be unexplained simply because it is a type of interaction that has just not yet been considered rather than that the accepted scientific laws currently on the books are incorrect or wouldn't apply.

In other words, the empirical laws in the books might actually allow for such a thing already and the scientists and others could just be ignorant of that.

This could mean they already have the keys to the kingdom but just don't know how to use them to enter in themselves and would attempt to bar others from entering in due to their own ignorance, hypocrisy and self-righteousness.

I believe a similarly wise and great man said something similar although in a different context. And he also was right.

[ME]

I guess everyone has his own take on this, this is mine: <etc>

I have to say I find your posts incredibly insightful helpful and just plain good.
I have yet to see anything that you've posted that I find anything but. Even your minor points that you toss out are excellent. Now maybe I'm just biased because we seem to have very similar views.
Just wondering how is your own build comming?

Thanks.
As for building: I'm still at the drawing board trying to come up with something versatile enough. Simulation is so much easier.

[Fletcher]

(snip)

So you have to find an interaction unexplained by conventional science to find PM...

I don't disagree with that, but I would suggest that such an interaction could possibly be unexplained simply because it is a type of interaction that has just not yet been considered rather than that the accepted scientific laws currently on the books are incorrect or wouldn't apply.

In other words, the empirical laws in the books might actually allow for such a thing already and the scientists and others could just be ignorant of that.

This could mean they already have the keys to the kingdom but just don't know how to use them to enter in themselves and would attempt to bar others from entering in due to their own ignorance, hypocrisy and self-righteousness.

Dwayne .. I tend to agree with Tarsier on this one.

The reason being that the current laws of physics are coherent (form a whole and are logical and consistent). They also exhibit symmetry as expounded by Noether's Theorm.

This means that as a house is built from blocks from the ground up, one layer on top of another, so is physics and the formulas used to express those relationships.

One of the basic tenets is the Work Energy Equivalence Principle. It says that KE is the currency for Work (capacity to do Work ( f x d )). It also says that GPE and KE, as far as masses in a gravity field are concerned, are interchangeable in that as one loses GPE it gains an equal amount of KE. It also says that this linear exchange in energy form is completely independent of path taken, as we all know from pendulum drop tests and masses on wheels turning losing height and gaining velocity.

Therefore, IMO, if a wheel with some black box mechanics (unknown) thru the manipulation of mass placement within a wheel, is able to give the wheel as a whole additional impetus/impulse such that it gathers Angular Momentum and KE over time with no additional input of external energy into the system, then this breaks the coherency and symmetry axioms.

That means if a mechanical black box principle exists to achieve a self sustaining wheel that can also do external Work then one of the foundations of the house is inconsistent for ALL mechanical situations and this makes the whole foundation suspect.

For a wheel to exist such as above then the laws of physics expressed in mechanical and mathematical terms must be faulty, and so we can not hide a wheel such as this inside the current paradigm no matter how unique the mechanism.

[John doe]

Today's physics is bonkers!
The problem is that Newton laid the scientific foundation.
Science built upon this foundation.
Einstein Disproved newtons theory's 200 years later.
Science should have scrapped ALL of Newtonian physics but they did not! It still exists as a flawed model. Oh sure it may be easier and quicker bla,bla bullshit but it's still WRONG.
They should have started over and rewrote all applicable principles. All 200 years worth. (Granted it would not take that long to redo the models given technology advances etc) .
I wise man once said .

Matthew 7:24-27English Standard Version (ESV)

Build Your House on the Rock
24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.�

This is just as true with science.
Newtons laws forbid perpetual motion
Einsteins theories Prove perpetual motion!

[John doe]

I guess everyone has his own take on this, this is mine: <etc>

I have to say I find your posts incredibly insightful helpful and just plain good.
I have yet to see anything that you've posted that I find anything but. Even your minor points that you toss out are excellent. Now maybe I'm just biased because we seem to have very similar views.
Just wondering how is your own build comming?

Thanks.
As for building: I'm still at the drawing board trying to come up with something versatile enough. Simulation is so much easier.

How versatile does it have to be ? Wheel turns left or right or both 3 options.
There is not a lot of versatility there. May I ask if your planning on following a route similar to bessler or are you looking into other avenues?
You seem to be a step ahead of me makes me wonder if I'm running into a blind dead end. Not very worried but a tinge of doubt. I keep weighting for someone to come up with a similar answer but so far no dice. So I keep hoping that it's an avenue no one has thoroughly explored or exploited I should say. Oh we'll tomorrow is a new day.

[Fletcher]

Today's physics is bonkers!
The problem is that Newton laid the scientific foundation.
Science built upon this foundation.
Einstein Disproved newtons theory's 200 years later.

The fact remains that Newtonian physics works perfectly adequately at the macro level, the level of machines and mechanics in the very least.

Not one experiment proves otherwise.

Yet if Bessler had a mechanical 'arrangement' that negated or mitigated even one of Newtons three Laws to accumulate momentum and KE then that would be press worthy and worth a macro physics re-write.

Trouble is nobody knows what his 'arrangement' was to do a basic experimental proof to start the re-think and re-write process.

The jury's out for me whether a sim program will allow CoE to be broken. If it builds bottom up from basics and formulas then it is a possibility. If top down constrained by CoE and Conservation of Momentum then not likely, IMO.

That means you have to 'see' how it would contravene the physics laws as you design your product.

[John doe]

While I have ideas my device is not up and running yet so I will refrain from going into details. But a good start might be to compare Newtonian mechanics with Einstein's and look for formula anomalies. My theory is that when correctly implemented there will be an 8 to 12% surplus of energy created. Under near ideal conditions with minimum friction. When you start adding variables and less than "ideal" conditions this percentage can quickly go to 0 or net loss like we currently see. This will eliminate vast amounts of unnecessary searching and limit the field to a very specific area. If anyone is interested that is.

Yes my design is based solely on this theory. I have not run any sims or calculations and am using a strictly intuitive approach based on these theories. Except the most basic formulas.

[raj]

Dear John Doe,

I, too, am following my intuitive reasoning.
OBLIVIOUS of science!!!

Raj

[John doe]

Lol I would not say "oblivious" to science.
I know what science says and I know what I believe and what my theories say. I use science up to the point dimensions weights ratios etc. but then I am designing my build based on my theories. So at a certain point in on my own...

Also in regards to an earlier statement I made I would like to clarify.
Newtonian laws need to be looked at with regards to einsteins theories. So no I guess a complete rewrite is probably not necessary but significant modifications and changes should probably be made but rewrite is probably an overststement.

[raj]

Clarification:

OBLIVIOUS to science, when it goes AGAINST my intuitive reasoning.

That's the way, I feel I could find what I am searching.

Raj

[John doe]

I'm glad you clarified that lol.

[oldNick]

There are many on this forum who are using WM2D computer simulation software to prove their PM WHEEL concepts.

Can computer simulation provide an unequivocal proof of concept???

If YES, how???

What must the simlation SHOW to convince people that your concept works?

Raj

Hi raj,

If a super computer with the sum of all known human knowledge cannot design a PMM, what makes people think a simulation program of any kind can provide proof of concept?.

[raj]

Oh, please, tell me a bit MORE about this ' Super computer with the sum of all known human knowledge ...'

The rest is just the ' prerogative of my belief '

Raj

[ME]

As for building: I'm still at the drawing board trying to come up with something versatile enough. Simulation is so much easier.

How versatile does it have to be ? Wheel turns left or right or both 3 options.
There is not a lot of versatility there. May I ask if your planning on following a route similar to bessler or are you looking into other avenues?
You seem to be a step ahead of me makes me wonder if I'm running into a blind dead end. Not very worried but a tinge of doubt. I keep weighting for someone to come up with a similar answer but so far no dice. So I keep hoping that it's an avenue no one has thoroughly explored or exploited I should say. Oh we'll tomorrow is a new day.

Basically nothing to report, but if you really want to know...
A standard wheel is not much of a problem. I have some obsolete spinning-wheel from my wife, I can attache some mechanism onto it and see what happens.
But I want to try something else and with only handtools (which were sufficient for my previous trials up until now), it's going to be a challenge but I think doable (which I happen to like). Otherwise I need to invest in some powertools first, which I hope to avoid - as this PMM research is just a relaxing hobby. The "versatility" is about the way mechanisms can be attached and rearranged without screwing up the wheel too much while remaining rigid enough; just enough for real-life simulation and handling small weights in the range of tens of grams.
When nothing comes out of this, I think I'm done with the PMM research and find myself another nut to crack. That's why I take my time, because I know I'll get back to this research anyway.

You seem to be a step ahead of me makes me wonder if I'm running into a blind dead end.

I didn't know we were competing - besides the obvious challenge of finding PMM. So what's your "blind dead end"?

If a super computer with the sum of all known human knowledge cannot design a PMM, what makes people think a simulation program of any kind can provide proof of concept?.

It's not the saw and hammer making furniture.

One could try to feed all the Wikipedia pages into IBM's Watson, but when you present it some board-game one should be happy to only get: "What is the game of Go?". Let alone it could play chess against Deep-blue, let alone make a simulation of the entire universe.
Basically supercomputers just multi-task a single task for a single discipline.

Creativity is about multi-tasking multiple tasks in multiple disciplines.
In other words: it's not there yet.

[John doe]

Today's physics is bonkers!
The problem is that Newton laid the scientific foundation.
Science built upon this foundation.
Einstein Disproved newtons theory's 200 years later.

The fact remains that Newtonian physics works perfectly adequately at the macro level, the level of machines and mechanics in the very least.

Not one experiment proves otherwise.

Yet if Bessler had a mechanical 'arrangement' that negated or mitigated even one of Newtons three Laws to accumulate momentum and KE then that would be press worthy and worth a macro physics re-write.

Trouble is nobody knows what his 'arrangement' was to do a basic experimental proof to start the re-think and re-write process.

The jury's out for me whether a sim program will allow CoE to be broken. If it builds bottom up from basics and formulas then it is a possibility. If top down constrained by CoE and Conservation of Momentum then not likely, IMO.

That means you have to 'see' how it would contravene the physics laws as you design your product.

Perfectly adequately is a relative term.
For example a small if you are traveling on a extremely long journey from point A to point B to point c. All you have is a direction to travel in and don't know the exact end points location other than it's a long way away. You start at A and travel for 200 years and then discover that you made a very small .0001 percent error. What do you do A) continue on your journey using the original heading and say it was a very small error it won't matter.
b) use your original heading as your new heading?
C) Take into account the variation between your starting point the amount of variation and your current location and use this to determine your NEW heading?


What I am saying that if someone would go in and look at ALL the formulas that use Newtonian mechanics and reinterpret them using what Einstein said you would have your answer! AND thus a road map to PMM!

The reverse is also true. If in the same example after 200 years you somehow discovered that you were not where your calculations said you were supposed to be then you could take your current location and your original location and CALCULATE. your error. Does this not make sense????