Anyone suffer health problems over this?

[Johndoe2]

One thing concerns me after rewatching MEs video is the small ball never contacts the actual surface of the board/spring this concerns me greatly as I have never seen this in real life. It's possible (I hope) that it is a glich in the video otherwise it throws into question even these simple results.

[cloud camper]

It contacts the spring board when I watch it.

[Fletcher]

It does for me too. The only thing I can add is that ME must have placed a sliding vertical pivot in the spring board (hidden), to keep it horizontal at all times. Else the large red ball impacting to one side would cause the spring board to angle somewhat. And in turn this would cause the small blue ball to catapult off at some angle rather than straight upwards. Other than that it represents what physics says it would do and what we instinctively know will happen, imo.

[ME]

Marchello - you forgot to throw in the magic ingredient - the sandwiches!

Epic fail!

Thanks for that "Epic" :-)

You should have noticed that I mechanized the trampoline situation... and show it does not increase the total GPE.
Those balls are incapable of shifting their own weight to push against the trampoline... So the Center of Mass will no go above that black center line.
Hence: No work --> No sandwich.

Sandwiches are only required when you don't mechanize those jumping humanoids inside a wheel....
Not to make them perpetual, only to last a bit longer.

[ME]

the software, even it is the best up to now, can not handle what is going on in Besslers wheel.

You are aware that I only tried to provoke Silent to look at his own design mechanism (not the wheel!) and make some predictions?
And then came JohnDoe with a trampoline (where I politely showed a simulation similarity). But that doesn't matter, because that's why your manually calculated design can't be simulated?
Hmm.... (good sandwich)

But things are so much faster with a computer, and so is it with any calculus in bulk. That's why they were invented in the first place: They compute!
So when you have checked well enough if it really mimics reality (or your own calculus), then you should understand the limitations and know what to expect.
And then, when it fits, why not use it?
Besides, when manual calculus exceeds the space of a single A4, it becomes seriously laborious, boring , and prone to error.
So please at least use a spreadsheet... with your own formulas. It is exactly what that thing is invented for.

A simulator does exactly the same, it only has another front.

[ME]

Im not complaining about you or any one in general but science and the way that it tries to restrict thoughts and ideas.

Please elaborate if you want, because I definitely don't see it that way.

Yeah well, I guess it's the same all over the World, in the early days at school it may have looked like that they graded your inner parrot and were less fond of the exploratory nature of pups.
When you are at a point that you really want to discover unique things then there are methods to guide you. As long as you're not in the middle of bureaucracy then the only thing that's left is exactly that exploration fun.
Just know that the scientific "rules" are just discovered or implied from other rules. Not invented to make live harder.
Good science should simply encourage finding exceptions. It's just that some possible areas are found to be totally void of exceptions. But who actually knows?

See it as yourself stranded on some unknown empty island.
Survival-mode kicks in.
You need food, fresh water, shelter, and stay safe.

Perhaps the first thing to do is check if the local area is really empty.
That saves you a lot of trouble.
Either you quickly need to hide from dangerous inhabitants or you can simply walk to the nearest phone.
Anywho, say it's deserted.
Then you need to spend your time well with all that knowledge you currently have. When you don't know where to find things, then any direction you go will do so can rely on chance and gut-feeling.
After a while you start to see patterns for where to find fresh water and food.
And when that pattern is repeatable and successful then you have found a rule.. call it "law" if you want.
It just saves time and effort. So you can do other things. That's science: knowing how one thing works, so you can continue with the next.
And your "rule" is especially handy for communicating it to that new friend who washed up a bit later.

But your "rule" doesn't mean that either fresh water or food can't be found anywhere else, maybe your "rule" is not that perfect.
So maybe this "friend" finds out, and therefore starts to check the inside of that volcano. So "phuck the rules", because maybe there's a fresh water pocket inside that lava flow. (because: it flows too you know... thus hmm?)
Bye friend.

New rule: "They" say there's food near that volcano, and it's not a sandwich. Probably tastes like chicken.


---
JohnDoe, I'm terrible at extracting information from text where references are not entirely logical and abstract. (Calculus requires it)
Could you draw a picture?

[ME]

Uh oh.... I'm lagging behind. (What did I miss?)

It does for me too. The only thing I can add is that ME must have placed a sliding vertical pivot in the spring board (hidden), to keep it horizontal at all times. Else the large red ball impacting to one side would cause the spring board to angle somewhat. And in turn this would cause the small blue ball to catapult off at some angle rather than straight upwards. Other than that it represents what physics says it would do and what we instinctively know will happen, imo.

Yes.
I wanted to show how the Center of Mass behaves.
Otherwise it became visually complex, without added information.

Anyway, when people think balls can be deflected higher and higher then please try it out on the nearest trampoline.


I eyeballed the heights. So it's not exact, yet I think it nevertheless shows the principle.
Note that the jumpers actively correct the slope the trampoline may have.
Anyway, this is for comparing the situation.

Quick explanation:
Left-half background picture: The initial situation where both are at their highest point in the air and thus vertically motionless.
Right-half background picture: The final situation where the kid is propelled sky-high.
In "vague"-colors, the initial ball-situation, the final ball situation on the foreground.
The trajectory shown as a white arrow.

[Johndoe2]

Not sure I'm on my iPhone.
I'll try and explain it better and then see if I can draw it .

Test 1
2 masses dropped from identical heights at the same time dropped on spring board as per your initial model. ( record start height.)
Run sim (Record end height of both end heights).
This will give us gained or lost potential energy. ( Mass A + mass b ending height, Probably a small loss) record result.

Test 2
2 identical masses drooped.
Mass A dropped from 1/2 the height mass B.
Mass A is dropped 1/2 a second before mass b. ( See my slam dunk video)
This will give mass A time to compress spring board as mass B falls and accelerates.
Run sim. Calculate end point of both masses. My theory is that
1 ) that test 2 will end with total higher potential energy than test 1.

2) that test 2 ending potential energy ( expressed as ending total height of both masses will be greater than beginning height of both masses.)
If this is correct we have an increase in the Ending height (potential energy)of total system which according to newtons laws is impossible.

If this would not qualify for a valid test of Newton's laws please someone say so and explain why and I will reconfigure .


Ok going to try and draw something to help explain.

[Johndoe2]

ME I'm not saying science is worthless. Im saying that in many cases it encourages group think. How.many inventions were thought inpossible only to find out they were not. How many scientific theories were laughed at by the scientific community only later to find they were correct ? How many inventors and scientists were laughed at and ridiculed only to later sometimes postumasly be vindicated? This is my complaint.

[ME]

How.many inventions were thought inpossible only to find out they were not. How many scientific theories were laughed at by the scientific community only later to find they were correct ? How many inventors and scientists were laughed at and ridiculed only to later sometimes postumasly be vindicated? This is my complaint.

How should I know... when you can predict a phenomena, then you can simply proof it will happen.. and that the prediction is better than chance.
Basically end of story.

There are many in the theoretical physics area maybe? About working with theories, upon theories and try to find some correlation. Or maybe in some cases it is about numerology, because a number sequence "feels nice".. Or "my symmetry" is better than "your symmetry"?
So probably there are a few who have some shady theory.... that may be true, but there are so many ideas.

There are cases where people predicted the outcome of some lottery in some country and did or did not won some great price.
That sounds great. But take all the people in the world, take some % of them who are willing to participate. Let them write down an arbitrary sequence, and then compare... What are the statistical chances that two are the same... it can be calculated.

I don't know. I just guess what could be the case... you tell me:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 767#166767

The benefit of perpetual motion: You can see its effect. When it's à la Bessler's, then know that he had likely more primitive tools than what you currently have.... etc. in short: proof should be easy.

Also:
Attached a filmstrip.... For those with glitchy views, and for those who are interested in how it works, and to correct for that epic trajectory failure in the other image.

[Johndoe2]

Ok so the black and white dot in the middle is not an actual ball I did not know that.

[Johndoe2]

Sorry ME did not get a chance to draw or upload the requested sketch got slammed the last few hours of work. If the above description dose not provide enough details and I will try to sketch something and get it up loaded unfortunately it wont be tonight as I have aprevious engagement with large amounts of alcohol and a certain beautiful woman 😉.

[raj]

10,000 programmers, scientists and physicists have tested wm2d.
WOW Fletcher, I did not know that,

I trust the same number of programmers, scientists, and physicists must have tested BOEING softwares.

We just had a Boeing plane going auto-pilot (using computer instructions), nose-diving and killing 100s people.

Computer Glitch?

No Computer Software will do the UNKNOWN which it has not been programmed.

And nobody in the entire world knows the unknown.

Raj

[ME]

Raj, I totally agree.

It's disturbing when human pilots are considered not trustworthy enough and thus get sidelined and constrained by programmed 'intelligence'. (Ars-technica: It's "More that an auto-pilot")
This so called "intelligence" is at best home-grown artificial "knowledge" in the form of a statistical "best-fit"-result from some obscure artificial network on force-fed numbers.
So when the computer lacks crucial knowledge, it can't quickly consult a spare artificial network with some new numbers.
And you don't want that anyway, because it totally lacks understanding.
You also don't want it to auto-experiment with things outside its own scope and constraints while on active duty.
The whole reason for its existence is its capability of not getting distracted from his own scope.
If you want that, then you'd need something out of that box, like a human pilot with all his personal quirks...


Luckily we can use home-grown software, formula's and test-abilities for some physics tests without causing casualties. We all have the ability (perhaps not the know-how) to test, verify and validate if external software conforms well enough to our needs.
Perhaps you don't know, but I build a simple problem-solver to quickly find me the timing condition where the blue ball ended up the highest.
So there are benefits.

[Johndoe2]

Any luck with the sim ME?
Just curious ( I know I'm right ) lol.
Should have mods done to my current wheel and feedback posted tonight with a little luck. Cheers.