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

Design Status Update

Post by Silvertiger »

Hey haven't been on in a while...'sup? Anyway, I figured out something last year and put it into WM and it worked, but then my hard drive crashed and I just now got WM back on another computer. So I figured I would share a little of what I've been up to. I did some more designs based on the same principle and they all worked. Some were made to rotate 360, and others were made to oscillate back and forth, and some are balanced while others are not. I basically decided that if I can't mechanically create oscillatory gains without external input (unless I'm Bessler of course), then I had to do something else. So I did. I oscillated something else...something very important. So now I can basically make anything fall upward in the program anytime I want without external input...yes, I said "fall"...it falls down first, but in-so-doing it then falls up. EVERYTHING about it is counterintuitive, but the overall design elements are simple enough to reproduce. Of course, it's just a program, and I do bear that in mind. However I have good cause to hope since so many different designs have worked and have been tested in two versions of WM, just to be on the safe side. So hopefully I'll be able to slap something physical together with my next few paychecks.

Note: It's definitely NOT Bessler's design. To be honest I gave up on trying to mess with it.

Edit: Also, I don't know if it would "go" until its parts failed; all I know is that it keeps going all the way to 32,765 frames in WM, which may be a limit for the program itself or a limit determined by the total RAM available.
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

re: Design Status Update

Post by Tarsier79 »

Be carefull with WM2D springs and/or impacts. Increase your accuracy, and make sure you turn on some air resistance to emulate some real world losses.

Good luck with your real world build!
User avatar
Oystein
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 968
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 8:41 am
Contact:

re: Design Status Update

Post by Oystein »

I agree. Years ago i made big masses jump high as small fell, and could make oscillating machines and rotating machines based on this principle. When measuring kinetic vs. potential energy etc, WM reported gain.

The problem was accuracy in WM.
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

Absolutely. No springs...the only linkages I have are linear motion dampers for synchronization. No impacts either. Any recommendations for settings to get better accuracy?
Art
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1019
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:55 pm
Location: Australia

re: Design Status Update

Post by Art »

Hi Silvertiger ,

Why are you so confidant that it's not Bessler's design ?

Good luck with the building , I'm looking forward to hearing whether you can verify WM predictions .

.
Have had the solution to Bessler's Wheel approximately monthly for over 30 years ! But next month is "The One" !
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 »

Impacts in WM2D can include overlapping polygons, not impacting but occupying the same space.

Accuracy is a setting, you will find it in the menu.

Sorry, but it is hard to help further with the amount of info you have given. Real world will be the ultimate proof.
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

It doesn't match anything in all the descriptions of his wheel.

I know where accuracy is at...I was just wondering if you know of any custom settings that are more accurate than accurate option that's already there.

Edit: no intersecting polygons are present, even going thru it frame by frame
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 »

Finally conducted a successful sim in sw4d. What a headache. Had to go back into wm2d and replace certain linkages with rectangles and pin joints, and then back into sw4d and rearrange/recreate constraints after manipulating the extrusions and positions of the parts. It worked for a time until the constraints failed. Oh yeah and the ratios of the masses are completely different, but the framework remains the same. Of course I don't know how to set up air resistance in that prog so I just cranked up the axle frictions. Anyway, the motion is identical lol. Gives me hope at the very least.

Edit: The bad news is that the arrangement of the parts is such that designing and fabricating it would the best engineer's nightmare on structural reinforcement alone, since they interact in such a way that two frames must be built, since it is two intertwined and interdependent mechanical systems. But hopefully the POC build will go smoothly. I think I've dumbed it down to the simplest arrangement of parts and motion...I think.

Edit: In retrospect, what I think I'll do is the same way I do a large mechanical assembly in AutoCAD - I make drawings of each part in it's own file and then combine them as blocks into one drawing. I think that's what I'll do except I'll do it with wm2d - save each part so that I can specify exact extrusions and positions when assembling it in sw4d.
Philosophy is the beginning of science; not the conclusion.
User avatar
Blitzbrain
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 8:48 pm
Location: Germany

re: Design Status Update

Post by Blitzbrain »

Hi silver...

I once started with WM2 but it is definately not to be compared to real model.
Anything changes with a model, that you can touch an see spinning...

Good luck with your efforts...
Kind regards form Germany

Never stop Groovin'!

Blitz
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 »

Here's a little more information regarding the design, which I hope proves itself: I said that weights could fall upward - but that is just an effect. The root cause of this is that I figured out a way to create the properties of a mass without actually having a counterweight mass itself. It isn't there. It is an illusion, and hopefully nature will perceive it the same way that WM does.

The basics of science begins by identifying a problem and then attempting to solve it through means of experimentation and observation. The problem in the case of the gravity wheel is the same exact problem in creating a windmill, which is that these are conservative forces, naturally. The wind force problem was solved thousands of years ago, since it is a simple task to bias the direction of the wind by changing the angle of attack, thereby producing rotation through deflection using curved and/or angled blades. If the blades are curved, then aerodynamics and air pressure come into play as well.

The same exact problem exists when it comes to gravity. However, it far more difficult exploit a bias from gravity, as opposed to wind, since the hypothesis itself cannot be tested. So what is the hypothesis? If somehow a dynamic mass were created such that is has more mass on the falling side than the ascending side of the wheel, then gravitational bias can be achieved.

Second problem: How the hell do you accomplish this task, since it isn't possible to physically manipulate the mass of an object, let alone in an oscillatory form? The answer is that you can't. So what's left? Nothing, and that's the REAL hypothesis to the problem.

The expanded "nothing" hypothesis stated more clearly: If I produce the effects of a changing mass without actually having a mass - by "faking" it, then this is an effect for which nature will produce the cause in kind.

In a nutshell I created a placebo for physics, if that makes any sense. This placebo is able to "weigh" nothing when needed, and yet it is also able to increase it's "placebo weight," or "perceived weight" if you will, in magnitude until it is able to leverage itself against an opposing mass and overcome it. Since technically the mass in question never existed to begin with, the net effect is the "upward" fall of a permanent mass, and thus I am able to finally test that impossible first hypothesis...at least in two simulators, that is.

And although the design looks simple having only a few parts, it is an extremely awkward arrangement and may take many attempts. I dread the potential hole in my pocket that this may cause.
Philosophy is the beginning of science; not the conclusion.
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLggEt1 ... e=youtu.be

Here's a sim with only the flywheel visible. The rest is concealed of course. ;) This is the placebo effect in action. I'll break it down to three main parts: the prime mover, the driver (which houses the placebo mass), and the flywheel.
MrVibrating
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2875
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
Location: W3

Post by MrVibrating »

Max the integration error - switch it from auto to manual and enter a 1 and five zeros (it'll then read 1.000e+005). Then max the animation step to something like 1 or 2 thousand per frame. This will reduce the number of cycles completed before it runs out of memory, but should also eliminate any major errors - it'd be more convincing to see a vid of its acceleration curve than running duration.

The principle you describe though sounds good - a pseudo-weight is indeed a silver bullet, provided its energy consumption is less than the resulting overbalancing energy.

This is where my similar attempts have failed - your placebo counterweight presumably consumes energy (in my last try along these lines the 'placebo weight' had to be spun up, for example), so you need to measure the energy this is drawing, and also the output energy being generated. This can be tricky, and it's where i slipped up, thinking i was onto something when it actually all balanced out.. the guys here can help out with this, if you can divulge enough info without giving the game away.

Of course i'm assuming here that you're actually giving it input energy in some form (since this would seem to be a necessity to generate a force). If however the only form of input energy is from overbalancing torque then this point is entirely moot, and indeed bodes extremely well for your success.

Also the two inter-dependent mechanisms sounds good, or at least, consistent with some of my conclusions..

So good luck with it, crossing fingers for you, but get the input & output energies measured!
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

Increasing the fps I agree with, but maxing the integrator error would increase the tolerance of overlapping and assembly distances, which would make it extremely INaccurate...why would I want to do that?

And bear in mind that the placebo weight in other terms may be described as an analog of a variable mass - so it does not exist, but only in certain moments are the properties of a mass conveyed. Sorry I can't be more clear. Yet it does require input...there IS a minimum required threshold of input energy that must be delivered to the placebo in order for it to become "heavier" than it's counterpart, and this is easily regulated, although it can get a little tricky when changing accuracy settings...it all comes down to anywhere from one to three separate mechanical adjustments.
(For example, I had to make two separate mechanical adjustments when I changed accuracy settings to 1000fps until it worked again.) And yes, the placebo does derive all of it's input power from the system itself. I should also note that there is some complex ratio or formula involved here, which I have yet to determine, since there are so many variables of interaction.

I do have chart data saved on angular velocities, accelerations, KE, torques, and power, but not at the accuracy settings you mentioned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr-O7WKuBH4

If you watch long enough, it will trend at increases in angular velocity, acceleration, and KE.


Edit: I did change the accuracy settings. Animation Step = 1000fps; Integrator Error = 5e-5. It still worked. :)
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 »

So here's the vid with the new accuracy settings and a power output graph:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikdEtpDGEO8

Accuracy Settings:
1000 frames per second
Integrator Error tolerance 0.00005 inches

(Yes, there is an inconsistent constraints dialogue, but it is referencing the fact that I placed a rigid joint on top of a pin joint. This is specifically for the flywheel and not the machine itself just fyi.)
Philosophy is the beginning of science; not the conclusion.
User avatar
Fletcher
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8200
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:03 am
Location: NZ

re: Design Status Update

Post by Fletcher »

Perhaps for your own interest you could run a Total System Kinetic Energy cross check ?

Just copy say the time output box & rename it.

Then in the right side cells write Kinetic () where a formula usually goes.

Then you will see if the system KE is increasing even with frictional losses.

Additionally you can deduct the amount of "Activation Energy" you had to give it to get it started. If you have a good measure of surplus then it looks good for you.
Post Reply