Design Status Update

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Post Reply
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

re: Design Status Update

Post by Silvertiger »

I did measure the total KE, but I couldn't get kinetic() to work. Every time I tried, WM crashed; so I did it the old-fashioned way. I measured the KE on all system mass components and added the outputs in "Total System KE."

I kept the fps number down this time (since it's recommended on Kutta-Merson to only modify the integrator for accuracy) so I could fit more data into the vid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2LV-3W ... e=youtu.be

Power Output is the blue line.
Total System KE is the black line.

You will notice many "spikes." These are caused by the placebo weight's activation threshold, which takes place at seemingly random moments and kinetics, but only when it is needed in order to push the machine back into action.

Consider each activation of the placebo weight like the history of a roulette wheel: once the action is rebooted, the placebo's job of energy loss recovery is done, and thus the prior "kinetic cycle" has no bearing on any future system losses, since that is the essential job of the placebo, which renders any previous losses moot. Each new cycle's ultimate energy gain is based solely on the last physical positions of the internal components prior to reboot.
Philosophy is the beginning of science; not the conclusion.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

Wow this is REALLY interesting. Thanks for the updated vids. Certainly looks like energy creation - i've never seen outputs like this that weren't in error. And you've also got air resistance enabled, so the gain seems undeniable.

Are you sure you have the simplest possible implemetation of the principle? Probably an inane suggestion but it's all that comes to mind for now... Bessler and Prince Karl both stated that his mechanism was disarmingly simple, yet i'm reluctant to believe there can be many different ways to do this - surely we're lucky if there's just one? Either way success is all that matters, who cares if it needs 200 moving parts..

Eagerly awaiting updates..
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

re: Design Status Update

Post by Silvertiger »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq4KGUKKdEA

So here's a new sim, this time with a load. The GE is driving a 160-lb piston through a 15-inch shaft (It's a rectangular block instead of a cylindrical shape). I have only 80 pounds on the driver doing the work. I used a load with double the weight of the driver to really show the placebo mechanism at work. In the graph, if you notice the time on the bottom, the period to the activation threshold of the placebo weight has shorter time intervals than in the previous kinematics analysis video to account for the load, while both the frequency and power distribution of the GE remain virtually the same. This illustrates the "roulette wheel" system energy losses history concept, because the kinetics are rebooted each time the placebo activates, and with a load, it simply does it more often.

MrVibrating wrote:Are you sure you have the simplest possible implemetation of the principle?
MrVibrating wrote:...who cares if it needs 200 moving parts..
You would be shocked if you knew just how many moving parts it actually has. Even I found myself scratching my head a time or two. ;)
Philosophy is the beginning of science; not the conclusion.
User avatar
Tarsier79
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5002
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:17 am
Location: Qld, Australia

Post by Tarsier79 »

Placebo weight.... able to be simulated.... requiring initial and some continued input... the only thing I can think of: CF/ Inertia?
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

All i can think of too.. but all i can find there is blasted symmetry. What other forces are there? He's made no allusions to EM. It's not nuclear. No idea what he's up to.

But i'm on tenterhooks...
User avatar
cloud camper
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:20 am

re: Design Status Update

Post by cloud camper »

Within the boundaries of an accelerated reference frame (rotating wheel) of
course physics says that there is no possible rearrangement of weights that
could cause a gain in energy. This is another statement of symmetry.

This is easily shown on a playground flat merrygoround. With four persons
on board, there is no coordinated action that can be performed that will increase the overall energy of the system.

The four riders can all perform work against CF by moving their weight
to the center and increase rpm but overall total of muscular energy has decreased preserving total energy.

We can explain this simply by saying that once on board, there is no external
reference frame available to push against that would add energy to the system. The reference frames are essentially isolated from each other at the boundary condition(s) and can no longer interact.

The only other mechanical forces known in physics are the centripetal, centrifugal, Coriolis, and Euler. The last three are all fictitious forces associated with accelerated reference frames and cannot be shown to do work external to the rotating frame.
User avatar
John Collins
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:33 am
Location: Warwickshire. England
Contact:

re: Design Status Update

Post by John Collins »

Those four rider's coordinated muscular energy cannot increase the overall energy of the system because each action by them results in an equal and opposite reaction.

JC
Read my blog at http://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/

This is the link to Amy’s TikTok page - over 20 million views for one video! Look up amyepohl on google

See my blog at http://www.gravitywheel.com
User avatar
Tarsier79
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5002
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:17 am
Location: Qld, Australia

re: Design Status Update

Post by Tarsier79 »

But if you turned it on its side, including gravity, the riders could add energy to it. Just as one does on a swing.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

Re. external FoR's and something to push against - this is why Bessler's insistence on the absence of stators is so interesting. Obviously, momentary gravitational alignments must be acting as effective stators.

If however this isn't the case, then the working principle may well be transferable to a carousel after all..
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: Design Status Update

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Mr V,

Not forgetting Bessler shows us a gravity Stator in MT 13, by way of a heavy pendulum, if you can call it that, because it would not swing very much.
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: Design Status Update

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Mr V,

Not forgetting Bessler shows us a gravity Stator in MT 13, by way of a heavy pendulum, if you can call it that, because it would not swing very much. Thus opens up our options "unfortunately", making it more difficult to narrow down the options.
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

Yep but then in AP he's quite emphatic that "In a true PM everything must, of necessity, go around together. There can be nothing involved in it which remains stationary upon the axle". He reiterates this point in more than one place, hence if it's not true then it's one almighty bum steer.

I wonder if Silvertiger's contraption has one?
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: Design Status Update

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Mr V,

It would not be the first Bum steer Bessler came up with, and of course the working parts would need to go around together with the wheel, only not the stator, if you have something so simple a carpenters boy could build it you are going to throw in more than one or two Bum steers.

He has not gone out of his way to help us. A heavy weight may have been found out when they changed wheel mountings, but still cannot be totally ruled out.

Edit, lets hope Silvertiger has found something that can light up this darkness.
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
triplock

re: Design Status Update

Post by triplock »

Trevor

I don't believe that a heavy weight was used to ground the internal mechanism or give a platform off which the mechanism could react off.

The reference frame was Revolute and not stationary in the sense that x and y axis are. Relative too the force producers, the reference frame or frames remained stationary.

If that relationship is / was lost then the wheel would keel.

Chris
Trevor Lyn Whatford
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:13 pm
Location: England

re: Design Status Update

Post by Trevor Lyn Whatford »

Hi Chris,

I was only pointing out it was a option, my two main builds still out standing, everything would move around and have no stators, with the exception of the grounded support frame that is, but there are still options that need a static leverage point that could be hidden within the wheel.

I would also point out that leverage can still be applied to a rotating reference frame using Gravity not as a stator, but as the actuator, maybe not a Bessler Wheel but a rotating wheel never the less.

Something to push against
The wheel structure would give you something to push against just as long as it is corrected by a greater pull of gravity to the positive.
I have been wrong before!
I have been right before!
Hindsight will tell us!
Post Reply