I value constructive criticism wherever it comes from, but marching in elbows-out and just calling everything BS, with all the bitching - they're friggin' honest, open measurement attempts, it's not like i'm flogging dodgy merchandise.. and then the disengenuity of simply guessing efficiency without even attempting to derive or measure it - whilst trying to bamboozle with maths showing the formulation of the guess as if that lends it anything more concrete.. i always resolve false positives myself anyway - errors usually become clearer once you start trying to optimise the 'gains', and i just do not need any little slags bitching at me in the meantime, it's feckin' 'mechanical OU' research, current total successes on-record: 1, Bessler. Low-hanging fruit for ego-motivated pseudoskeptics out for easy points..silent wrote:Thumbs up for your Mr. V! Isn't it something how you can pour your heart into something and give it your best shot and you can always count on a "reputable" member to come in and shoot you down? I can only imagine what is said, but I must say that anyone who is critical about someone else's work, but yet can't explain how a Bessler wheel works is nothing short of a hypocrite. Instead of encouraging people's efforts, it's this perpetual negativity that can really get a guy down and why ultimately in the end, I made ample use of the block function. The *ONLY* thing that would ever make me listen to them is if they had a Bessler Wheel that was fully functional then I might tolerate a little bit of the ego and arrogance and grab for a piece of moldy bread they tossed me once in a while, while saying, "Yes master - whatever you say master." but thankfully this is not the case. I only get bits a pieces of what certain members are posting through various quotes and comments (which is still way too much), but large amounts of time are saved by me not even having to read the comments of the self-appointed experts.
Moving right along, I've been slowly progressing on my next build. Fortunately during down-time at work my workmates and even my boss are tolerant of my building stuff there and explaining it. My boss has told me, "You know if you figure this out, you need to share it with me since I'm letting you do this here?" I assure him I would and I will if it works.
The principle is simple, but not easy for me to build (but it wouldn't be hard for a carpenter's apprentice to build). I have to admit that if my idea works, I won't be that exuberant because it's simple to the point of being disappointing.
What I've finally settled on (and I could very well be wrong) is that since gravity is everywhere, there is just no magical angles, no magical weight arrangement, and nothing other than just plain raw mechanics cleverly assembled to effect movement. The principle I'm working with involves taking power from the hub of a wheel where torque is at its greatest and using it to move weights on the periphery. Many of the clues from Bessler seem to fit - more than anything I've ever built. I think I've got Bessler's idea of broken columns figured out as well as what he meant by an upper weight by which the constituent parts of the machine receive power and push. I also think the part about weights in acting in pairs as well as weight gravitating to the center and then up again is absolutely correct. The beauty of what I've thought up is that you can increase the torque of the wheel by changing it's size and not even have to change the size of the weights and the constituent parts of the machine will receive even more power and push without having to add more weights to do it! That's what I'm shooting for anyway.
Will what I have under construction work? I have no idea, but it's my best idea yet and until the wheel is solved, how can anyone decry or even approve of what is being built? I only share this because your effort has been a valiant one. You've tried so many iterations and reiterations - the most of anyone I've seen on here. Your open mind is to be applauded - no matter how wrong others think you are, with each failure we know of one more thing that won't work and it narrows it down even further.
I'm fully convinced that Bessler knew how simple his discovery was that he HAD to write books and use tons of diagrams to help hide everything and cloud the issue. Until I have a working wheel though, I'm absolutely no expert and can't criticize anyone's attempt. Funny thing is that if anyone is successful, they won't be applauded. The offended egos will instantly descend upon that one with a furor the likes of which the world has never seen and you'd have to go into hiding.
Anyway, I always enjoying reading your posts mate. I've never thought so long and hard in my life over things I barely understand. I still don't, but at least I understand them a little better than before. There is more to be gained by supporting one another with kindness and tact no matter how wrong we might be, because one day the solution will be found and it will be nice to see how close we were to it or how far we had been.
silent
Regarding your thesis, i have one main doubt here, which is that, since you haven't mentioned otherwise, i'm presuming you're taking the torque by using some kind of 'stator', against which the hub turns..? Bessler was quite emphatic about 'no stators', and i consider this compelling evidence in his favour, since this condition potentially isolates the system's momentum frame of reference from Earth's / the ground, which is a de facto prerequisite for paying less input energy than the resulting KE is worth..
Anything i can do to help you solve the system, just ask.. building's fun, but remember our whole objective here is, ultimately, to put ourselves out of a hobby.. i began building, but quickly switched to simming for its sheer speed and ease, flexibility and efficiency etc. My flat's littered with old builds that were ultimately all, of course, redundant.. but i've simmed hundreds of different systems now.. and learned that much faster, the plain physics of what it actually is i'm trying to achieve..
You get that "the thing that makes KE", in this universe at least, is the standard KE equation - that 'gains' means literally stitching together the raw components of ½mV²; they're not going to be magicked into existence, but must be cajoled from the interplay of gravity and inertia, because those are the only two fundamental forces in the game; we know that both gravitational and inertial interactions are conservative within their own respective terms, so only some kind of combined gravito-inertial interaction has any chance of wrangling a symmetry break... the thing to really try digest is the 'momentum first' imperative (i'll bullet-point it for max effect);
• CoE depends upon CoM: motion is relative, therefore so is velocity, and, thus KE. Relative to what? CoM. This is why a head-on collision between cars at equal speed is half as severe as a single car crashing at twice that speed; the relative impact velocities are the same either way, but the KE exists relative to the ground..
• Thus the first question we should ask is not how Bessler's wheels gained energy... but rather, how they gained momentum!*
Newton's first law reduces to the improbability of affecting a closed system's net momentum via the internal expenditure of work.
Superficially, a closed system of masses interacting about a common axis satisfies that condition... but for the presence of gravity, this uniform acceleration, that applies to masses, changing their velocity (and thus momentum and KE) as a function of exposure time to that constant acceleration / deceleration..
..so obvioushly, gravity is the source of the momentum gain. No-brainer.
The next question, then, is how do you gain KE from a momentum gain?
And the only possible answer, there, is.. to pay less for it!
Cost and KE values of momentum are held symmetrical by CoM - the 'reference frame of CoE' is that of the Earth, thus if the terms of our input PE are relative to Earth, and the terms of our output KE are also relative to Earth, then our efficiency is, by definition, only ever going to converge to unity..
Thus to break the symmetry of PE to KE we need to spend our input energy in an accelerated reference frame, because, just for example, since KE=½mV², a 1 m/s acceleration of 1 kg costs ½ J from stationary, but 2 J if it's already moving at 1 m/s, and 4.5 J if it's moving at say 2 m/s, etc. etc. - the input energy price of momentum increases with rising velocity - so we need to 'spoof' being stationary, or at least, being at a lower-than-actual speed, to thus enable purchases of momentum at discounted costs for our current actual velocity. Two different values of 'speed' means two different FoR's, and since KE will always reside in the terrestrial frame, it is the FoR of our input energy workload that must undergo some kind of reactionless acceleration, gaining momentum independently from Earth, that is, without counter-torquing it. This, in turn, introduces new momentum to the world, sourced from the gravity * time delta, which CoM then duly conserves, and yadda yadda end-of-days etc. - with any luck, leaving us a brief interlude of fame and riches before we're all hung, drawn and quartered.. type stuff.. (why do i always go there? Because, uh.. see any other way?)
'Momentum first'. Think it thru, eh..
ETA: *for clarity, the specific question is: "How did B's wheels gain momentum despite being statorless?" - because it's that, particular form of momentum gain that is potentially an OU process, somehow defeating the usual outcomes of CoM / Newton's 3rd law.
