Success..?

[MrVibrating]

I know, circumstantial correlations and all that, but just superficially:


• note this point re. forcibly over-speeding any OB system synced to wheel angle;; the instantaneous rotKE cannot be greater than the current input GPE, regardless of where that rotKE came from

• this means the OU work coefficient can only be located in the form of an internal PE increase - could be GPE, and/or CF-PE

• IF this is real, consider that Bessler was seen to press down on a spring when reloading the wheel after its translocation - obviously, then, priming it with the PE that would otherwise be collected from the conversion of rotKE to CF-PE once in operation


So forget all about MoI regulation mechanisms, solenoids, motors and actuators - that's all test-rig apparatus, for generating and measuring these kinds of interactions in the first place; a rig that exploits these principles can be much more basic..

All it needs to do is generate internal angular momenta whilst sinking the counter-momenta to gravity, then consolidate it with inelastic collisions. The gain is then collected in the form of CF-PE - basic 'G-force' over radial distance, and/or raised GPE.

In the bi-directional wheels, collection in the form of CF-PE seems the most mechanically viable option, consistent with a need for priming with centripetal elastic PE, however this doesn't preclude the possibility of harnessing it directly via GPE inputs instead, for a one-way wheel.

Or maybe CF-PE is also the most viable way to harness it in a one-way wheel too - who knows, for now - but the basic picture is this:

• the OB GPE interaction was, and can only ever be, a zero-sum; rotKE was equal to input GPE; that is, the wheel could not physically out-accelerate itself, or thus its rate of GPE in/out per unit time

• thus the KE gain can only manifest as a CF-PE discount - boosted CF force over radial distance

So if we set up some way of converting radial PE into these internal angular accelerations + collisions, we should find there's more than enough energy there to close-loop..

..working the OB GPE interaction into the mechanics seems the trickiest part, but it's obviously not insurmountable..

[MrVibrating]

So do you have a constant or cyclical input of energy?
This is necessary.

Going back over the last year or so, i have fecking expended myself producing systems that either produce progressively-smaller per-cycle momentum yields for a constant p/c input energy cost, or else a constant p/c momentum step size, but for an escalating input PE cost. Either way, the input-energy cost of momentum was doggedly tracking its ½mV² value.

As to whether that's still the case, here's a latest example:



• constant per-cycle momentum yields

• constant per-cycle input PE

• escalating per-cycle KE value

Hence it appears that the asymmetric inertial interaction is working as intended, riding on the back of a perfectly-symmetrical OB gravitational interaction, and manifesting gains in the form of 'excess' CF-PE.


That said, a 'false positive' is when mistaken results seem to nonetheless confirm the working theory - and this has happened repeatedly. Part and parcel of getting close, on the one hand, but an expensive lesson if i'm pullin' sickies for it..

Caveat emptor etc.; draw your own conclusions..

[MrVibrating]

Just to clear up any possible misconceptions, what i'm demonstrating is a measurement of an interaction, not a machine design.

The rig is not being fed with 'energy' - that's not how simulation works - instead, instantaneous forces are calculated frame-by-frame, and then integrated in the form of ((force * velocity * time) over time) - this produces the four "P*t" integrals, and the summed 'area under the curve' of those plots is the 'work done' / spent input energy.

As described in the previous posts, it appears that the 'power socket' we'll be wanting to plug into is that radial CF-PE. That's where you harvest the gain and use it to close-loop, but as ever, we're going to have to work out how to do that from first principles and trial & error...

Right now i'm just identifying the power source that an actual 'generator' principle might be based upon.

Could the current test rig actually be built, and operated? Yes, it appears a well-made model could run itself whilst charging a battery, say.

Again tho, a minimal, purely mechanical implementation may look quite different, and can probably be constructed from components depicted by Bessler..

[Jala]

It works like this:

• the KE equation is ½mV² for linear, ½Iw² for angular, but same deal either way; half the inertia times the velocity squared

• motion is relative, thus speed is relative, thus KE is relative; specifically, to the 'zero momentum frame'

• accelerating the ZMF allows us to transpose the value of our input work up and down the 'V²' multiplier in the KE equation; basically, 'spoofing' a lower-than-actual velocity on the input energy cost of accumulating angular momentum from gravity

• we accelerate the ZMF by sinking counter-momenta to gravity in an otherwise closed system of masses interacting about a common axis, and accumulating the resulting per-cycle momentum rise over successive cycles; violating N1 by violating N3

• thus we might legitimately purchase, say, 10 rad/s on a 1 kg-m² wheel in ten discrete 1 rad/s accelerations costing half a Joule each, per the ½Iw² equation; net cost = 5 J... however we'd then have a 1 kg-m² system at 10 rad/s, so 50 J of KE, per the same ½Iw² equation..

So basically, just playing the game, by the rules set down by CoE and CoM.

If you follow that logic, it becomes clear that really, CoE doesn't exist as a fundamental law; it's actually an epiphenomenon that falls out of the confluence of the three laws, which themselves are only anchored by mass constancy... whereas MoI is of course variable.. which in turn causes reactionless torques, caused by CoAM, which in turn cause asymmetric inertial interactions with gravity, which can accumulate momentum-from-gravity over time, and yadda yadda...

sorry i just dribble this shit these days, even without the dentists.. just study the KE equation, ask yourself why energy squares with velocity instead of just rising linearly, what factors does PE-to-KE symmetry depend on; start doing throwaway calcs for fun, just using the KE equation, momentum and gravity * time or any notional N3 break, because the thing you want to see, to understand, IS a mathematical entity in the first instance, since 'KE' and 'momentum' are differentiated by their respective terms of conservation during inertial interactions of varying elasticity; so you HAVE to grasp the 'vis viva debate' insofar as understanding the basics of energy and momentum, force, mass and motion etc.; woolly mechanical descriptions are just handwavy approximations of the real meat and potatoes..


Just finished high-precision measurement of the original chicken run; unity to multiple zeros. Phew! That's almost a relief..

..it seems to mean gravity's a factor tho.. i still think i got it pretty much right in the first post - the system's decoupling rotKE from GPE, in error or otherwise..

I'm James Lindgaard. Don't worry, I've sent Scott a message to block me.

In a clockwise rotation, a weight gains force because it swings closer to the axle. Bessler shows a counterclockwise swing;;
https://besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php ... Mt_085.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_lcJAGHV9s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz8Lzn59-RI

Mr. Vibrating, if inertia isn't cancelled out then it takes over 9.8 nm of mass (1 kg)
to lift a weight that is 9.8nm of force as calculated by inertia which is 1/2 mv^2. Inertia needs to be a non-factor.
With Bessler's wheel, you guys have a lot of learning to do. And since this forum is about HIS work, you guys should probably at least get the basics right.

[Jala]

Found out how to edit on here. I guess being a fraud shows itself, right? I forgot something that simple.

Don't worry all. I saved John Collins message about what a loser I am and who cares about Holland. They have an original book written by Johann Bessler. And like myself, they are not native English speakers. It might have people wonder why someone is an idiot for speaking English as a 2nd language.
Have been in contact with them and that is why I've spent over 1 year on a redesign.
As for this forum, it's a waste of time. You guys can say "I speak English". Bessler never spoke English. It seems it does come down to that.
And if everything works out, maybe we'll find out why native English speakers are simply better.

[Jala]

Not sure what to say. Native Englishers aren't better. And working together to promote Bessler isn't allowed. It's all about who is better.
You guys know who I don't like. My father lived under the 3rd Reich. He knew real Nazis. Care to compete against them? I know their tactics. My father taught me about such things. If you can't compete against real Nazis, you will bore me with your nationalism.
The simple reality is that I will kill you and be done with it. Such things get old and I have no need for them. If you have need for such ignorance, it's not a life I would be ending. Hitler lost because people said no. Just don't become a part of that kind of history. The war really isn't over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrIQbadXX74

[MrVibrating]

Four runs, halving the spin-up speed each time:

No. of Turns = 0.25

Braking Torque = -100 N-m



Target Relative Speed = 1 rad/s:
________________________________

Acts = 36.61670363 J

Motors = 14.02047948 J

Brakes = -9.153771958 J

Sols = -0.080277422 J

Total = 41.40313373 J

KE Rise = 41.461677 J

Diff = +0.05854327 J



TRS = 0.5 rad/s:
________________

Acts = 35.80506918

Motors = 6.751492325

Brakes = -4.225714323

Sols = -2.979973851

Total = 35.350873331

KE Rise = 38.295649

Diff = +2.944775669 J



TRS = 0.25 rad/s:
_________________

Acts = 35.85063911

Motors = 3.336571314

Brakes = -2.134886932

Sols = -1.977229605

Total = 35.075093887

KE Rise = 37.059382

Diff = +1.984288113 J



TRS = 0.125 rad/s:
__________________

Acts = 36.06103834

Motors = 1.724039769

Brakes = -1.131445869

Sols = -1.540645726

Total = 35.112986514

KE Rise = 36.657904

Diff = +1.544917486





Conclusions:
____________


Given the certainty of GPE symmetry, the efficiency of interest is the ratio of motor work, to gain; this clearly improves with lower spin-up speeds.

This result is consistent with the "maths of OU" - where the interaction is intended to gain a constant momentum per cycle, which, being a conserved quantity, accumulates within the system, at fixed unit energy cost, for a KE value that increases by a fixed percentage multiplier per cycle - ie. 50% per cycle for a 1:1 MoI ratio, or 33% p/c for a 1:2 ratio, 25% for a 1:3 ratio etc.

This means we can expect to correlate the gain to such a pattern in a fairly precise manner, upon looking even closer...


As ever, tho: moderate your expectations!

The last time i was measuring gain, the source turned out to be phantom torques going unmetered; a situation which should be impossible, yet somehow arose.

On that occasion, IIRC the fault lay with a motor being applied in a reactive feedback process...

..similarly to how these 'rotary solenoids' are applied in the current rig!


So is it possible that they're inputting torques that are somehow escaping metering?

Unfortunately, since it's happened once already, it can't be easily ruled out... even if the gain pattern matches the hypothesis to the millijoule, we can't dismiss the possibility that the sim's failing (not me - the SIM!).. Bastard, eh?


So we need to lose the active MoI control; find the simplest rig that should replicate the key conditions as here, and compare results..

The MoI control was only applied in order to facilitate a variable TRS, and thus asynchronous s&b to GPE cycle ratios..


So we probably need a new rig: something minimal, that can accommodate the possibility of a radial CF-PE gain, whilst eliminating the possibility of it coming from any internal motor/actuator gone awry..

[Jala]

For context, Poland after 1939 was a conquered country. It still suffers today because it was given to Russia at the end of WW II.
So when you listen to its musicians, please consider their past.

[Jala]

@AB Hammer, I was born on January 15th like my grandmother in Norway. Didn't Americans kill an American for saying he was an American for being born on January 15th? I know enough to be afraid.

[Jala]

Four runs, halving the spin-up speed each time:

No. of Turns = 0.25

Braking Torque = -100 N-m



Target Relative Speed = 1 rad/s:
________________________________

Acts = 36.61670363 J

Motors = 14.02047948 J

Brakes = -9.153771958 J

Sols = -0.080277422 J

Total = 41.40313373 J

KE Rise = 41.461677 J

Diff = +0.05854327 J



TRS = 0.5 rad/s:
________________

Acts = 35.80506918

Motors = 6.751492325

Brakes = -4.225714323

Sols = -2.979973851

Total = 35.350873331

KE Rise = 38.295649

Diff = +2.944775669 J



TRS = 0.25 rad/s:
_________________

Acts = 35.85063911

Motors = 3.336571314

Brakes = -2.134886932

Sols = -1.977229605

Total = 35.075093887

KE Rise = 37.059382

Diff = +1.984288113 J



TRS = 0.125 rad/s:
__________________

Acts = 36.06103834

Motors = 1.724039769

Brakes = -1.131445869

Sols = -1.540645726

Total = 35.112986514

KE Rise = 36.657904

Diff = +1.544917486





Conclusions:
____________


Given the certainty of GPE symmetry, the efficiency of interest is the ratio of motor work, to gain; this clearly improves with lower spin-up speeds.

This result is consistent with the "maths of OU" - where the interaction is intended to gain a constant momentum per cycle, which, being a conserved quantity, accumulates within the system, at fixed unit energy cost, for a KE value that increases by a fixed percentage multiplier per cycle - ie. 50% per cycle for a 1:1 MoI ratio, or 33% p/c for a 1:2 ratio, 25% for a 1:3 ratio etc.

This means we can expect to correlate the gain to such a pattern in a fairly precise manner, upon looking even closer...


As ever, tho: moderate your expectations!

The last time i was measuring gain, the source turned out to be phantom torques going unmetered; a situation which should be impossible, yet somehow arose.

On that occasion, IIRC the fault lay with a motor being applied in a reactive feedback process...

..similarly to how these 'rotary solenoids' are applied in the current rig!


So is it possible that they're inputting torques that are somehow escaping metering?

Unfortunately, since it's happened once already, it can't be easily ruled out... even if the gain pattern matches the hypothesis to the millijoule, we can't dismiss the possibility that the sim's failing (not me - the SIM!).. Bastard, eh?


So we need to lose the active MoI control; find the simplest rig that should replicate the key conditions as here, and compare results..

The MoI control was only applied in order to facilitate a variable TRS, and thus asynchronous s&b to GPE cycle ratios..


So we probably need a new rig: something minimal, that can accommodate the possibility of a radial CF-PE gain, whilst eliminating the possibility of it coming from any internal motor/actuator gone awry..

I posted better math and was called a fraud. Basic calculus will show 90 degrees of rotation. A Pi unit shows 4 quarters to one cycle. Combine both of them and it's a simple explanation.
Needless to say, being branded a fraud in a way demands more of this forum. It is disgusting. But better math needs to be shown. I am a loser. Support those who support you, show where they are right.
I did look at your numbers. What relationship do they have to a given mass? Just not shown. Show a 360 degree rotation and how your values have meaning.

On a simpler context, I can say that you proved my work. Right? You like your math and they like your math? It's what I've already posted but in short, you're only proving what I'm doing. And yet, I'm not a native Englisher. So who is right? You are.

[Jala]

Can you show where my build is not 2 of your opposing weights? What I am saying is that you are modeling my work which I have posted and you are calling it your own. You show the center of mass being shifted. What causes it's shift?
As I said, in here, I am the fraud. I've posted both the math and the builds. But I am a fraud. Please show where you are not stealing my work. You really need to show this. My build is very obvious. It's made of wood. Am I proving your work?
According to this forum I am. And for what I have put into my work, I cannot allow for claims such as yours. This forum supports you. The problem is that you can only prove my work is right. The people in here will say that I am wrong. If I am wrong then so are you.
This is why I have to raise an objection and say that you are stealing my work. If I am successful, this will become a record of my defending the years of work that I did.

Mr Vibrating, I took screenshots of these posts. Your posts will allow you to claim that I borrowed or stole from your work. In a legal sense i will have to defend myself against a lawsuit anyone in this forum might bring. Scott Ellis does nothing to protect anyone. This forum actually allows him to say that he was a participant . Basically he deserves everything because it's his forum.
The law allows him to say one of us was successful because of him. AB Hammer knows this. Can I prove I'm not stupid because of this forum? A court will decide that. After all, has Scott Ellis ever signed an agreement with anyone giving away his rights to anything realized in his forum that has value?
If not, according to AB Hammer, Scott Ellis has a claim to anything realized in his forum.And the law actually agrees with this.

[Jala]

@All, AB Hammer stressed the importance to me of potential litigation. And you guys have supported him. So with this forum and it's members, potential lawsuits are my primary concern. You will defend AB Hammer. And with me, this means that to discuss anything with anyone in this forum requires an attorney to be present.
I do have to protect my legal rights with every post. And I have to prepare for court. And when someone posts something that supports my work, the law requires me to lodge a formal protest if possible. If not then it is possible for said individual to say that I am stealing their work.
This is why I have to object to this thread. My work in my opinion is being stolen. The law requires me to make such a statement. Mr Vibrating can say that he is not stealing my work but he does need to show his source. At the same time, can he show that I have not previously posted such material in this forum or on you tube?
Ask AB Hammer. He will tell you that this is what he taught me. It is better than working together.
And AB Hammer, this is what happens around people like you. I do fear for my safety. You have an excuse. Engleske is my 2nd language and you were afraid of that.
https://www.pnj.com/story/news/crime/20 ... 846781002/

[Jala]

@All, I am saving this thread based on potential lawsuits. Mr Vibrating's work is very similar to my own. As AB Hammer taught me, I do need to document this to compare against previous work that I have posted. In this instance, AB Hammer is correct. While this is a general forum in which claims can be made, at what point is a claim stated as the basis of discovery?
A potential litigant needs to be aware of this. And to AB hammer, I do thank you for this information.

[Jala]

Since you guys need a clue, when one weight moves towards the axle, one weight moves away from it. Mr Vibrating omitted this from his animation. At the same time I'm a fraud because I'm aware of this. Look at my build. It has 2 levers that do that.
Bessler was a fraud but not Wagner. Wagner was never arrested for being a fraud.
Sadly, most of you guys have no interest in Bessler's wheel but prefer laughing at someone. After all, who was stupid enough to do many builds? I'm the fücking loser.
You don't learn from not trying. Sad reality.
Still, AB hammer as an attorney states that potential claims need to be addressed. I am addressing Mr Vibrating's claims to his claim of a solution. My work already accounts for his claims. And this by over 10 years, maybe even 15.. But no one calls him a fraud, least of all AB Hammer.

[WaltzCee]

(85x)xxx-2398