In for a penny, in for a pound.

[Robinhood46]

I think, personally, (with my bias) that this is how Bessler achieved PM.

I have made a video which is simply to show the finished wheel (hypothetical finished wheel).
With 5 arms and 15 sections to the wheel, there are about 8 knocks per revolution. I would have thought it is doable with 8 sections and 5 arms, which would give exactly 8 knocks, which would be just as wonderful.
There are many clues that are present. There also many clues which have no place, or are so obscure that they cannot be taken seriously.
What is missing is a mechanism which uses the raising of the small weight from 6 to 12 (with the lowing of the heavy weight from 12 to 6) to move the light weight, on the proceeding arm, laterally, with no lifting whatsoever, to the reset position. The resetting can take place pretty much anywhere on the descending side, obviously the nearer to 12 the better.
When considering all the forces in play, do not neglect the fact that the weights, on the arms, are not permanently associated with the wheel. While the weights are not associated with the wheel, their position and the forces in play are also independent of the wheel and are only re combined when they interact.
Algodoo, as anyone following my other thread already knows, is not always in a good mood and makes progress difficult. There is also the question of whether a simulation can show PM or not. I certainly wouldn't put my hand in a fire, but i do think it would show PM if someone found it.
THX4 does'nt share my enthousiasm, but does think that it is promising. He has also been good enough to print out some parts that will help with the build, which he will be sending soon.
The difference i have been talking about for 3 years, is present (obviously to anyone who understands what I've been talking about), does it matter? Will it make the difference? Is it really fundamental?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHVpSzsfOaM

[thx4]

If we consider that gravity is not conservative then your idea is probably the best one I've seen in a long time and I hope the rest will prove me wrong.
But you know what I think, before B Nothing, after B Nothing for now ... 😊

[johannesbender]

@RH i evaluated the same idea once , it is possible according to leverage to have a light weight be far enough away from the center to produce enough torque to lift a heavy weight , no problem , and its also possible to have the light weight balance the heavy weight , no problem , law of leverage applies .

However , to lift or move the light weight to a zero torque and a net torque position with the heavy weight , i found if i drew it out with distance measurements and leverage forces and weight measurements ,that the ratios wont work for moving the masses to the 2 radiuses back and forth for the ratios needed for torque and no torque positions too.

[Robinhood46]

Wikipedia.
"In physics, a conservative force is a force with the property that the total work done in moving a particle between two points is independent of the path taken.[1] Equivalently, if a particle travels in a closed loop, the total work done (the sum of the force acting along the path multiplied by the displacement) by a conservative force is zero".
Wheels which do not have the difference, that i think fundamental, have the wheel and the weights taking the same closed path together, in unison at the same speed, during the same time as one.
Wheels with the difference have the weights and the wheel taking the same closed path, but independent of each other, over different periods of time. The difference between the two is where i hope to scavenge enough excess energy to rip the skin off the rice pudding.

[Robinhood46]

@RH i evaluated the same idea once , it is possible according to leverage to have a light weight be far enough away from the center to produce enough torque to lift a heavy weight , no problem , and its also possible to have the light weight balance the heavy weight , no problem , law of leverage applies .

However , to lift or move the light weight to a zero torque and a net torque position with the heavy weight , i found if i drew it out with distance measurements and leverage forces and weight measurements ,that the ratios wont work for moving the masses to the 2 radiuses back and forth for the ratios needed for torque and no torque positions too.

Were you trying to get the reset to happen at the same position on the wheel as well as in space, or just in space, irrespective of where it was on the wheel?

[johannesbender]

Honestly the path can be such that the start and end never reach eachother and it would still remain a fact that gravity is conservative because it is path independend , it does not matter what the path is , the GPE depends on the height only .

[johannesbender]

This was my simple analysis of leverage for a light mass a long distance away from a heavy mass , the masses weight ratios were 4kg to 1kg , the distance movement ratios were 1(heavy mass) to 5(light mass) , the total distance ratio for equilibrium was 1 to 4 ,the total distance ratio for torque was 1 to 9 , which at equilibrium distance gives leverage 4gk * 1 : 1kg * 4 (4:4), and which at torque distance gives leverage 4kg * 2 : 1kg * 9 (8:9) , but note , to move the mass 5 units in and out needs more force / energy because the masses are weights 4kg:1kg but the distance needs 1:5 units.

Now , where this reset is suppose to occur does not matter for the needed energy of the masses to cover the 1:5 units , and the where the reset is suppose to happen for the wheel torque matters because that effects the total height of the masses fall and the torque , but variation in both cases does not produce the needed energy needed.

[agor95]

Hello Robinhood46

I have been giving some thought on your observation on the nature of this site.

You have been working on your sim's and videos some time.

There is me asking for responses, but I have not contributed to your thread!

So how can I help?

The other point comes to mind 'Why am I reading your contributions?'.

That sounds harsh put posting is an act of publication so my take home is 'Know your audience'.

Regards

[Robinhood46]

I wouldn't say it is the nature of this site, more the nature of us humans. As i have already said, as sites go, i think this one is by far the best.
I can only share my observations, of my own thoughts, because i don't have access to anyone else's thoughts.
So we can use my reasoning as an example.
I have managed to convince myself, (correctly or incorrectly, which is totally irrelevant to the discussion) that PM is only possible if there is something specific present in the way the weights and the wheel interact. They have a difference that i believe to be important enough to separate gravity wheels into two principal groups. One group PM is impossible and the other group PM isn't impossible, only improbable.
Because i have managed to convince myself of this, i have very little interest in any wheel which is in the group destined to fail, in my opinion, simply because it is in the wrong group.
This can be boiled down to; If someone proposes a mechanism that isn't compatible with my thoughts as to how it can be possible, it is obviously not the solution. My attitude toward it is negative and i can only, at best, half heartedly, help someone achieve whatever detail they are having difficulty with to build what i believe to be a non runner. Sharing my negative thoughts to explain to member x why i think the proposition will not work, is not really any help to the member. Most members know my thoughts on the two groups and are capable of putting their wheel into one or the other group, they don't need me to tell them.
I think another part of the communication difficulties is the factor time. For example, member x proposes a wheel which is incompatible with member y's current thoughts as to how it could be possible. member y has no reason to participate in the discussion. 6 months ago or 6 months in the future, member y has different thoughts and member x's proposition would be compatible. It's a bit like we are in our corner where we think the solution can be found and only those looking in the same corner interest us. Those crazy crackpot conspiracy nut jobs looking in all the other corners have no chance of finding the solution, they're bloody idiots.
Another aspect is what part of our current understanding of physics are we prepared to doubt. We are not all prepared to doubt the same things, each and every one of us have perfectly valid arguments to point out why others shouldn't doubt the things that they "incorrectly" doubt, with the whole scientific community to back up the arguments.
I am aware of all this going on in my head, because i can observe it. I can also see the consequences it has on the way i interact with other members. Other members give me the impression that the same things are affecting their thought process, by the way they interact between each other. The fact they too are humans like me, increases the probability that they are having the same difficulties overcoming the stupid default settings of the human brain. Our default setting is, yes burning witches at the stake is an excellent idea, falling of the edge of the Earth is a serious concern and there really is a bloke in the clouds pulling all the strings (the bit about the beard i have my doubts, but all the rest is absolutely true). This has nothing to do with our intelligence, it only depends on where we are born and at what moment in time.
We are capable of believing any old nonsense. I may be stupid enough to believe that gravity wheels with a fundamental difference is important, but i am not stupid enough to confuse it with knowledge.
What are you stupid enough to believe?

[agor95]

Hello Robinhood46

Thanks for sharing your outlook.

I am with you on your observations.

Although I have not gone out and looked at other sites. I am happy to stay here with all it's limitations.
Things like no statistics, attachment album, indexing and bad agent blockers.

We have two options do direct observations and share or take the observations of other on trust.

I agree we have a finite amount of time and attention so we sort through the post and ignore content.

So we ignore faulty physics and content outside our scope of research.

That is why 2d simulations or simulations that are to complex are speed scanned.

You have a good policy - If you have not got something positive to say then do not post.

Hopefully viewers on this forum are growing in ability and skills.
So the overlap with member scope is time dependent.

If there any doubles it is more to do with 'How do I model that?'

Hopefully we can all learn new tricks.

You post well give viewers an insight into the current etiquette and dynamics.

So what changes can you imagine happening to improve the forum.

P.S. Those crazy crackpot conspiracy nut jobs looking in all the other corners - Let them have the corners :)

Regards

[johannesbender]

@RH nothing wrong with believing and thinking something is important to the bigger picture , if the guy truely did figure something out that kept that wheel spinning then we are definetly missing it time and again.

[Robinhood46]

@RH nothing wrong with believing and thinking something is important to the bigger picture , if the guy truely did figure something out that kept that wheel spinning then we are definetly missing it time and again.

We are definitely missing something, of that there is no doubt whatsoever, the big Question if Bessler wasn't a fraud isn't DID we fuck up big time, but WHERE is it that we fucked up big time?
I think gravity being a conservative force makes PM impossible is where we FU, as i explained in Waltzcee's thread PM is impossible.
Here is another video to show my thoughts and hopes of where we will finally find the answer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN7IhiOF0Nc
My thinking is that the interconnection between the different arms should allow us to find a way of shoving the light weights laterally at the appropriate place to cause the resetting of each arm.

[agor95]

Hi Robinhood46

When we think on 'weights laterally' one can think a mass decelerating.

A mass in free fall has no weight. A moving mass slowing down does.

All the Best

[Tarsier79]

RH. It looks like the wheel is driven purely by the weight dropping, ie PE-KE. I am not a user of Algodoo. Does it allow you to measure the system KE? That measurement will tell you if you can reset.

[Robinhood46]

RH. It looks like the wheel is driven purely by the weight dropping, ie PE-KE. I am not a user of Algodoo. Does it allow you to measure the system KE? That measurement will tell you if you can reset.

The wheel is definitely driven by the weight dropping. When i place an additional bearing somewhere, it's purpose is to stabilise the object and get shot of any latent forces the programme has kept when i stop the program with the play/stop button.
If i adjust the restriction angle (the little green bar that determines who close/far the arms can get to each other) so as to get the raising arm to push the other arm further around, the distance needed to raise the light weight is reduced down to 5 cm (as opposed to about 10 in the video). This has the disadvantage of reducing the force being applied to the wheel by the weight dropping, because it only applies force for a shorter duration. The wheel if it isn't turning fast enough (not enough momentum) the weight will not be able to reach it's tipping point, where it starts applying a force upward on the ascending side.
A 5 cm raise is the smallest i can get with the simulation, before the momentum of the wheel causes the problem.
I am more inclined to think the resetting takes place much closer to the 3 o'clock position, which means either something along these lines would need to be raised a greater distance, or that the moving in and out of the lighter weight is done in a different manner. Changing the angle of the pivoting arm that holds the lighter weight allows to play with the timing of the swinging in and out, early or later, but as always what you gain one end you lose the other.
I would very much like to know what Jon J Hutton was hiding behind his piece of cardboard, because, as i have already said in many posts, with a combination of many peoples thoughts we are more likely to find a solution, than each to their own hiding things behind cardboard or talking in riddles.
You know what was behind the cardboard. In you opinion, is it possible that taking Jon's mechanism off the wheel and placing it on independent arms, could it help overcome the difficulties i am having?
I can fully understand Jon, or anyone else, not wanting me to steal their idea to stick their mechanism on my wheel, but nothing stops them from sticking my wheel to their mechanism, because all of my thoughts are given away for free, at no extra cost, not hidden behind cardboard, in plain (not always understandable) English, to be used by whomever thinks, hopes or wishes them to be of any use.
What do you think Tarsier? If Jon's mechanism was to marry my wheel, will it end in a divorce after about three turns, or will they be happy ever after, like in the stupid fairy tales, and they will go around forever and ever?
For the question about Algodoo measuring forces, i think it does, because Sequeen showed a video with forces, if my memory isn't playing up. I don't have a clue how he did it though. Maybe i can share my scene like Shadow does and someone else can have a play with it.