MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code

[ovyyus]

I assume Wolff looked thru a crack in the wheel covering below the axle line because it was over 11 feet in diameter plus ground clearance. Unless he stood on a box etc.

AFAIK, there was a raised stage area around the 12 feet diameter wheel so Wolff may have been standing on that when he peered through the crack at the rim. He was probably examining the downward side of the wheel rim where the impact noise was coming from.

[Fletcher]

Sounds reasonable Bill. I'd want to look at where the sounds were coming from if I could.

So we know with certainty that there were heavy cylindrical weights. They could be handled but were covered. They were not allowed to be touched on the ends.

There were short boards at the rim (Wolff).

Bessler says in MT10 that "The principle is good, but the figure is not yet complete until I delineate it much differently at the appropriate place and indicate the correct handle and construction."

Wolff speculates from "other circumstantial evidence" that there are rods and weights that swing and there is an impact on the down-going side.

Each can draw their own conclusions about the presence of lws, or even roller lws for that matter, and if they were connected or not.

[FunWithGravity2]

says that whilst gravity is an acceleration or field of potential it also can be a source of usable energy to convert to useful Work. That doesn't fit the Newtonian or Thermodynamic paradigms and would cause some rethink of Physics (Work Energy Equivalence and Noether's Theorem of symmetry) as we know it. Maybe just a footnote when the think tanking is done. But maybe a major overhaul.

If gravity does not exist then it cannot be used for work, maybe the fundamental flaw of creating new scientific methods that then become theories based on their own restrictive methodologies is where it all goes wrong.



Saying that an object in "freefall" gravitates toward the apparent center of the planet at 9.8 m/s squared is absolutely fine. But to then declare that this must be an invisible force that draws distant bodies towards each other seems a far stretch.


But I digress, Im most likely crazy.


Fletcher its great to see you still here and contributing, i truly wish i had more desire to visit but unfortunately i only find myself popping in yearly as the seasons change and the daylight hours shorten in my corner of the world. I truly enjoy reading everything that you contribute.


Sorry to all if i somehow jumped in the middle of the thread with my nonsense. I'll be moving along now. Wishing everyone the best.

Crazy Dave

[Fletcher]

Nope .. I had a look thru the MT comments. No other woodcut gets the high praise of "the principle is good," !

MT's 6 and 44 and 48 (rolling spheres) get a hint that something else can be accomplished than is shown, with proper know-how. Yet they are vastly different OOB concepts from the MT9 group concepts. Others get only marginal praise such as "ought not to be scorned", or "more to it than one supposes" etc. MT18 gets a "seems to be good, but seeming is different from believing" brush-off.

What every single one of them do is waste impact energy of transition to unbalance, and they don't work. Who hasn't looked into that wastage factor and tried to use it productively to up efficiency and aid rotational force ?! Zero sum game at best every time I tried it. So unless someone has a 'you beaut' method of harnessing and using that energy to create a true impact driven PM wheel then I'm at a loss about it any further. Wolff theorizes another force helped the velocity increase of the descending weights for example.

Unless, the very different false OOB concepts 'qualities' are not exclusively or primarily about the wasted transitional velocity and KE after all ? Other low hanging fruit ? (a phase I too like Walt) A possibility but perhaps hard to quantify. We know chasing inertia is fruitless and the concepts are all so different.

ETA: you're welcome Dave .. if I had answers to your questions about the substance rather than the nature of gravity I could be living on an island paradise by now, ordering another pina colada :7) I have to play the cards that are dealt my friend - take care till next time.

[ME]

If gravity does not exist then it cannot be used for work, maybe the fundamental flaw of creating new scientific methods that then become theories based on their own restrictive methodologies is where it all goes wrong.

Saying that an object in "freefall" gravitates toward the apparent center of the planet at 9.8 m/s squared is absolutely fine. But to then declare that this must be an invisible force that draws distant bodies towards each other seems a far stretch.

The thing is that the gravity-effect does exist.
Who knows how mass is actually able to do its thing, but it still acts as if there's a force acting between masses.
Also, theories are not for the fun of it. They're only useful when they can successfully predict an outcome.

So it will be extremely fun in Science-land when a perpetual motion machine still appears despite predictions!
But until that time...

Is there any way in which someone could use the gravitational slingshot formula that was used by NASA and other space exploration agencies and somehow work backward from the the actual to determine a working formula that assumes a alternative gravitational assumption that fits the outcomes that are considered anomalies.

Sounds good initially. Yet the basis of gravitational slingshots can be figured out with Newtonian physics. So basically you'll end up with Newtonian physics when you'd reverse engineer that effect.

Maybe we can enhance all of Newton's formula's with Einstein's General Relativity in mind. But the masses and velocities inside an apparatus are too small to see any of such effect. There would be no use, as far as I know and in my humble opinion.
In the end, all new and old theories should be backed-up by measurements.
The scientific methods are not an obstructive law but simply a way to avoid self-delusion and errors. There's too much at stake: like Truth finding, Invested time and effort, ... and... Future funding, Reputation, Career, Ego, Prices...

So don't worry, scientists are eager to proof Newton or Einstein wrong but they must be correct in that proof or else...

For your entertainment: Testing Einsteins Universe
https://youtu.be/7ZAPs0c6Kfs?t=528

[WaltzCee]

There exists a gradient between the sum and the difference of the
forces gravity and c.f. (centrifugal force) acting on a rotating mass(s). These forces add at
B.D.C. (bottom dead center) and subtract at T. D. C (top dead center).

It's only a vector addition where centrifugal (or lack of centripetal) points outwards, and gravity points downwards.

WaltzCee, a question about mb₍₁₋₄₎ in your napkin design.
Why would mb₃ and mb₄ move outwards while mb₁ and mb₂ move inwards?
It think that such opening and closing can only happen when mb₂ and mb₃ are fixed

Sorry I was AWOL. I think if someone has an idea, they should put a little napkin sketch of it
so everyone could get a bit of a sense as to what they're thinking, and also add some
hypothesis or a verbal expression of what they think. That's all I was doing. I don't really
think this idea has Merit.

WaltzCee, a question about mb₍₁₋₄₎ in your napkin design.
Why would mb₃ and mb₄ move outwards while mb₁ and mb₂ move inwards?
I think that such opening and closing can only happen when mb₂ and mb₃ are fixed.

You are correct, this is true. They can't push against thin air. The napkin design; isn't entirely
complete. I was thinking things I didn't draw. I'm certain it would run, if it had legs and
feet!:-)

My Demo copy of WM2D is on a notebook computer that is starting to fry. It's a brick.
Otherwise I would do some modeling and post those results.

Thanks for showing me how to do the subscript.

[Georg Künstler]

Fletcher wrote:

What every single one of them do is waste impact energy of transition to unbalance, and they don't work. Who hasn't looked into that wastage factor and tried to use it productively to up efficiency and aid rotational force ?! Zero sum game at best every time I tried it. So unless someone has a 'you beaut' method of harnessing and using that energy to create a true impact driven PM wheel then I'm at a loss about it any further. Wolff theorizes another force helped the velocity increase of the descending weights for example.

That is exactly the point, left and right are in unbalance because the energy is "wasted" on one side !! Energy is out of balance !!

The wasted energy is out gain, it requires a different thinking in our head to accept this.

I will prepare a drawing that you can simulate in your simulation programm,
no rules are hurt from Newton, simple mechanic oscillation system.

[Georg Künstler]

Here the drawing,

it is a T-pendulum, correct, but it is also an inverted pendulum.

The construction is top heavy. It is preloaded with gravity energy, under stress by gravity,
it is well balanced.

The two weights on the top can swing.
Any action on this construction will cause an imbalance, self amplifying.
we have an overlay of swingings in the room, up,down,left, right and reversal.

You can test such a construction very simple with your simulation program.

The task is now to control the swinging and keep it top heavy.

[Wubbly]

Bessler says in MT10 that "The principle is good, but the figure is not yet complete until I delineate it much differently at the appropriate place and indicate the correct handle and construction."

No other woodcut gets the high praise of "the principle is good," !

In MT010 he also says that it is exactly the previous model with certain exceptions. So MT009 must be a good principle as well, and in MT009 he first introduces the "connectedness principle" but doesn't tell you exactly what to connect.

And MT011 is an MT009 with two levels of weights and he says, "there is more in it than meets the eye". In my MT011 simulation, instead of connecting weights on the same level (which obviously doesn't work), I connected the weights between levels 1 and 2, hoping that might be his connectedness principle. The user had the option of which weights to connect (opposite, opposite+1, opposite -1, etc). I thought the MT011 simulation was one of the more interesting simulations, but it was still a non-runner.

[Fletcher]

I absolutely agree with your analysis and thought processes Wubbly. What were the common denominators and/or the missing link of the MT9 "Iris Wheel' groupings which included the misplaced MT's 37 and 38 ? Clearly a form of 'Connectedeness' Principle is required, or as I prefer to see it in my minds eye, the perhaps literal "Hung Together" (Zusammen Gehangten) Principle of his first language.

I think I will start a new thread and invite further input into the direction I have taken here. I intend to push the boat out quite a bit further fwiw, and it will take some pages and discussion.

I don't mind admitting that I have struggled at times for over a year now with some of the math and physics analysis of where we will be going. As you will see my sim program is limited in what it can perform in terms of complexity of modeling. Too many dynamic parts (like an outer Chain Link Prime Mover that I suggested for example, or latches) and it crashes badly. Might be just my lack of skill and computing power. So I have had to use it as a mainly visual aid to modeling and design and infer and work out best I can the rest. I've had too at times compromise on other sim techniques to functionally approximate what I was investigating to keep using the sim tool effectively. Not always satisfactory.

At least the general ideas will be quite understandable I should hope.

If interested I think fellows like yourself and ME (but not limited too by any means), will perhaps collectively be well able to pass thru my bottleneck and will have alternate strategies and analysis insights than my own. I'd welcome the input and the discussion.

Let's see how far I/we can push this boat out and ultimately whether the boat has serious leaks and takes on water or not eh ?! Time will tell !

[Wubbly]

I am still amazed that you guys can build sims as complex as your "Correct Handle-Construction (Gaffle and Pulleys)" simulation using the WM2D user interface. That interface drives me up the wall. I think it's because I was so used to the AutoCAD interface and it's rich features of snap points and editing. Maybe you just get used to the WM2D interface over time. The WM2D user interface seems terribly laborious, but others seem to have no problem with it. Maybe it's just me.

I don't mind admitting that I have struggled at times for over a year now with some of the math and physics analysis of where we will be going.

and that's what the sim is for :)

[Fletcher]

Yeah .. that's what the sim is for, except when it crashes out when you're only half done ;7(

The only Dynamic Physics program I learned was WM2D so my muscle memory is good from practice and not being confused by others ;7)

It takes me about an hour to knock up say that 8 lw Gaffle & Rope & Pulley's system from scratch. Generally I have a fairly good idea how to build something before I start the modeling, and what Inputs and Outputs I will want to explore. Sometimes I automate as much as I can to tidy it up then have to strip it out again coz the sim gets behavioural problems. Too many added layers which ultimately is detrimental to performance, tho not so nice and tidy with a pretty bow on top. You still have to have a fairly good idea of what physics you expect to see to even spot a suspected behavioural aberration which might otherwise go unnoticed.

As an example I can build up to 10 lws etc no problem. At 12 it flips out. And my investigations are suggesting that B's. 16 to 24 arms may be the best scenario. Way beyond what my sim can do, even when I simplify down to barest basics. So the white board and chalk comes out.

If my final directions are sound then we should be able to simplify down to basic conditions for testing the theory purposes. At least I hope so else we'll be pumping the spreadsheets and you and ME will get an added work out :7)

[Wubbly]

An hour to build a sim? Wow. Some of my simulations take me months to complete before they are somewhat presentable. And then I usually think of upgrades. But once you code a procedure to create a ring, you don't have to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, the next time you need a ring. It's a simple copy and paste.

[Wubbly]

This is a sample coordinate system. The wheel rotates in a vertical X-Y plane. The Z axis is along the wheel's axis of rotation.

Angles are measured as follows:
3 o'clock is zero degrees.
12 o'clock is 90 degrees
9 o'clock is 180 degrees
6 o'clock is 270 degrees

Clockwise angles are positive.
Counter clockwise angles are negative.

[Wubbly]

MT-15

The next sim on the list is MT-15 so I want to highlight certain aspects of Bessler's drawing. I'm going to focus on the outer weights.

The wheel spins counter clockwise as the outer masses go through four phases.

A) Lift Phase: An applied force lifts the mass somewhere between 70 to 90 degrees from an inner to an outer radius. This is the Lift phase.

B) Torque Phase: Quadrant 2 and part of Quadrant 3 are the Torque phase. This is where the mass applies a torque to the wheel to speed up the wheel.

C) Retract Phase: At the end of Quadrant 3 the mass retracts. The mass moves from an outer to an inner radius.

D) Coast phase: Quadrant 4 and the start of Quadrant 1 are the coast / counter-torque phase. The mass is at the inner radius, coasts, and also produces counter torque that slows the wheel down.

The outer masses do a kiiking maneuver.