Success..?

[Fletcher]

Yep, there's a major change in the plot shape for the Rotary Solenoid P x t at 1 kHz vs 10 kHz tho they start and end up at the same place. IINM that usually indicates more Power consumption when it goes deeper.

Sorry to hear that.

Perhaps you could run at different range of kHz and see if the trend holds true ? Just to be sure !

[MrVibrating]

Soz for fleeing this thread in shame - honestly, two months chasing down an error, this shit REALLY mangles yer head, but it's no use blaming the sim for an error that i should've pinned down earlier.. did it really need 13 pages? Cos once again it wasn't worth 1...


The fact that it closes at +2 mJ at 1 kHz, but shows increasing anomaly with frequency, establishes that it's an error creeping in on a per-cycle basis, so increasing the number of frames that the interaction (with its finite time) is spread across, likewise increases the net anomaly for that run - like a mirage that gets firmer the closer you stare at it; zoom right in and it's the Taj Mahal Holiday Inn, zoom out and its just more dunes..

The real reason to be kicking myself it that i continued to entertain the possibility of it being real in spite of the fact that the CF work integrals showed a zero-sum; it was obviously a good move to calculate them from first principles, but precisely because it's a key consistency check (if not sanity check) on the veracity of the anomaly; we know that no net work could've been done by or against CF force since the MoI was locked, but cross-referencing that with the CF integrals (using not one but two independent metrics) was arguably proof-positive that this could not be a real gain mechanism..

At the end of the day, the general principle i've been chasing - the intended OU principle - is KE 'gains' that are actually PE discounts; accelerating the net system on the cheap by buying low on the V² multiplier in the KE equation, per the EMGAT principle - no stators, everything must go around together.. ie. including the 'stator'.

In other words, i've been trying to apply a transient stator - something (a mass / inertia) that co-rotates with the system on a per-cycle basis, but which necessarily must speed up or slow down relative to the rest of the system at some point during that cycle; to wit, literally trying to drag my reaction mass along with me, by accelerating against it whilst it's gravitating, thus sinking my counter-momentum to gravity, and then 'colliding' with it inelastically to tow it along and redistribute the momentum so gained each cycle; inching the system up - and around - by its bootstraps, one spin'n'brake cycle at a time..

And as ever, you can readily see the merits of that objective; per KE = ½mV², accelerating 1 kg to 1 m/s costs half a Joule; if you could buy that same 1 kg-m/s of momentum for that same ½ J cost repeatedly, then ten such purchases nets you 1 kg at 10 m/s for a total cost of 5 J, yet a final KE of 50 J; that, in a nutshell, is how you make energy by circumventing N3. It's what Bessler's wheels must, ultimately, have been doing, since there's nothing else in classical physics that provides for such phenomenon; this really is the only possibility on the table. It's why the man said "EMGAT", and why we thus know he couldn't have been faking it, since, prior to the much later resolution of the vis viva debate, such knowledge could only, exclusively, have been arrived at via independent discovery... no one else truly understood the distinctions between momentum and energy, let alone the implicit possibility of making the latter from the former.. 'EMGAT' proves the debate was solved first by Bessler, but was part of his IP.

Further proof of this is found in the Toys page; we're all grownups here and our gratitude and debt to JC and his historical scholarship goes without question; the proposition however that items 'A' and 'B' are alternate aspect views on the same object is flatly wrong, i must say - it is quite definitely showing us a series of five asymmetric interactions about an axis, and all this guff about pentagrams seems as inane as Ken B's efforts at counting wig curls..

The hammer toys - and the interactions between them - somehow represent the causes of clockwise and counter-clockwise torques about an axis - the vertical 'chain' links represent the torques, so two run from left to right, but only one runs back from right-to-left. The accumulated excess after five such cycles is the 'extraordinary something' the text alludes to.

This five-cycles-to-OU is our key to the lock of how to apply the EMGAT principle.

In terms of the KE equation and the input energy cost of accumulating momentum sans counter-momentum, 5-cycs-to-OU can only be formulated in two physical ways:

1) a series of N3-busting accelerate-and-brake cycles between two inertias in a 3:1 ratio

2 ) a series of N3-busting accelerate-and-brake cycles between two inertias in a 1:1 ratio, but which also necessarily loses 50% of the momentum generated each cycle

Let's quickly demonstrate those:

1
----

• Take a 1 kg and a 3 kg mass; apply a unilateral 1 m/s acceleration to either (it makes no net difference in the end); let's use the 1 kg mass here, so it now has 1 m/s of velocity, half a Joule of KE, and it obviously cost half a Joule too.

• Now collide it inelastically with the 3 kg mass; post-collision, you're left with 0.25 m/s on both masses, the 1 kg has 0.25 kg-m/s of momentum, the 3 kg has 0.75 kg-m/s, so our total's conserved, and the KE distribution is 312 mJ and 938 mJ respectively, for a 0.125 J total - we spent 0.5 J and 0.125 / 0.5 = 0.25 (or conversely, 0.5 / 0.125 = 4), thus 75% of our input energy has been dissipated, 25% has been 'conserved', along with all our momentum..

• Repeat that a second time, unilaterally accelerating the 1 kg by 1 m/s and then inelastically braking it against the 3 kg; you now have a net system speed of 0.5 m/s, the 1 kg has 0.5 kg-m/s and 0.125 J, the 3 kg has 1.5 kg-m/s and 0.3750 J, for a total system KE of 0.5 J - at this point we've input 2 * 0.5 J = 1 J, so our net efficiency has risen by 25% from the first cycle, to 50%.

• This simply repeats for all subsequent cycles; each increases in efficiency by 25%, so a "25% per-cycle effiency accumulator" - after a third cycle the system's at 0.75 m/s, so the 1 kg has 0.75 kg-m/s and 0.2812 J, while the 3 kg has 2.25 kg-m/s and 0.8438 J, so 1.125 J total from 3 * 0.5 = 1.5 J total input, thus 75% net efficeincy..

• A fourth cycle brings us to unity; both masses are at 1 m/s, 1 kg has 1 kg-m/s and 0.5 J, 3 kg has 3 kg-m/s and 1.5 J, for 2 J total KE, and 2 J total input energy (4 * 0.5 J per 1 m/s acceleration of 1 kg)..

• A fifth cycle leaves us with both masses at 1.25 m/s, so 1.25 kg-m/s on the 1 kg mass, and 3.75 kg-m/s on the 3 kg, with 0.7812 J and 2.3438 J respectively, a net total of 3.125 J of KE.. yet at this point, we've only spent 2.5 J, and 3.125 / 2.5 = 125% of unity!


This is obviously just 'general' - it doesn't tell us how to effect a unilateral acceleration, and we don't know why the ratio of interacting inertias is 3:1 - though it would seem consistent with a system using four equal masses in which the unilateral acceleration was only applied to one of them, or else, to the other three, each cycle, with them taking turns to be included or excluded as 'accelerated' or 'non-accelerated' partners in the accelerate-and-collide cycle. A mass or inertia ratio of 3:1 seems strangely specific otherwise.. for instance a 3 kg-m² MoI paired with a 1 kg-m² MoI.. why not just go for a 1:1 inertia ratio, which would achieve unity in two cycles and 150% in three, with a 50% per-cycle efficiency accumulator? In other words, the four-cycles-to-unity, five to 125% efficiency envelope indicated by the Toys page must be due to a necessary condition, part and parcel of the EMGAT implementation / constraints..


The other possibility generalises like this:

2
----

• This time assume equal interacting inertias - a 1:1 ratio.

• Again, unilaterally accelerate one by 1 m/s for 0.5 J, then collide it, inelastically, with the other..

• This would, as mentioned, reach unity at the second cycle - it's a 50% p-c accumulator. Just keeps rolling over along with the accumulating momentum. However, for *reasons*, now subtract half of that per-cycle momentum gain; maybe it gets lost prior to the collision, maybe afterwards.. where's it go? Wherever. Gravity. That at least works physically. But just to make the numbers work, this would be a system in which 50% of the momentum being generated each cycle is somehow not conserved - for example a situation in which one mass / inertia acts as a transiently-gravitating 'stator' - basically, then, a 'weight' - which must subsequently be re-lifted to complete each cycle, and in which the momentum so repaid to gravity was fully 50% of the total raised by the input work done each cycle.


Both options are utterly general, but mathematically and physically consistent with a five-cycles-to-OU result.

Only one of them however is going to be so consistent with whatever the rest of the Toys page is trying to convey..


Bessler was a true genius - as i say, once his IP is discovered (reverse-engineered in the first instance) it will become clear to all that it was he who solved the vis viva dispute, a century before we had p=mv and ke=½mV², but this ingenuity extends also to his encoding schemes - his take on "hieroglyphics" was from the Kircher-era, but whereas Kircher's 'translations' were gobbledygook, Bessler's application of the supposed principles was right up there alongside Carl Sagan's work on the Pioneer plaque..

..the problem shared being how to communicate something in a super-cultural language? Something that anyone with sufficient intelligence, anywhere, would be able to decipher?

Sagan began with hydrogen - a dot in a circle obviously represents the simplest chemical element, it's going to have the same properties everywhere, and likewise the numbers 1-10 in binary obviously represent a number base, and with just those two things you can begin to communicate times, distances and scales etc..

Bessler was thinking along exactly the same lines - his 'elements' being things like 'torque' (or 'impetuses'), and the natural equalities of motion that fall out of the three laws - not in any deference to Newton but just from a general study of momenta confined about an axis, things that cause 'go' and things wot cause 'stop' (or 'friction' as he called it).

The Toys page is Bessler's Pioneer plaque, exclaiming "Hi, i'm here!" - it's his personal 'flag-at-the-pole', stamped in perpetuity in the now sadly-lost annals of history.. but to these sad & lost anals, anyway. Possibly, just this one. Whatevs. I'm sure i'm building up to more than just a wet fart, eventually.. this thing has to have a conclusion, i've got too friggin' far already..


I suspect that where i've been going wrong is at a general level - specifically, using a weight, temporary or otherwise, to cyclically sink counter-momenta to gravity in a sequence of otherwise-symmetrical accelerate-and-brake cycles; this inevitably culminates in a situation in which per-cycle momentum yields necessarily diminish with RPM, since gravity's a constant acceleration and so at higher RPM's the weight spends less time gravitating each cycle and thus less momentum can be earthed each cycle; diminishing by the inverse square of RPM and thus perfectly enforcing unity.. thus it seems intrinsically impossible to implement the 'maths of OU' physically, this way.. you just cannot buy the same amount of momentum for the same input energy each cycle as RPM's climb!

Yet OU is impossible if this condition cannot be met; either the same work has to buy the same rise in system momentum each cycle, or else, if the per-cycle momentum yield must diminish with RPM, then the input energy cost / work done in obtaining that diminishing yield must also decrease proportionately with RPM, such that we're still netting a PE discount at 5 cycles.

Fundamentally, 'excess KE' is an oxymoron; a misnomer for what we really mean, of a PE discount, since the KE of a system is a function of its inertia and velocity, so it can only ever have precisely the 'right amount' of KE at any time. So 'mech OU' is dependent upon subsidised momentum - paying less input work / energy for it, than its eventual KE value. In this universe, that's only possible with an EMGAT system, and furthermore, in this universe momentum is conserved but for one, single exception - the interplay of gravity and time!

The kiiking principle, however one may formulate it, is ultimately plying the 'ice-skater effect' to speed up or slow down the rising or falling phases of a swing under constant gravity; legs-down raises our MoI so causing a reactionless braking torque that slows us down, increasing the time-spent-accelerating under gravity, while legs-up applies a positive inertial torque that speeds us up, reducing the time-spent decelerating under gravity; so basically, MoI / mass radius changes allow us to gain or lose momentum from or to gravity and time, over as many successive cycles as we like..

..and it also satisfies the EMGAT principle.

Arguably, better than my whole "apply a force between two equal inertias, one of which is also gravitating" approach, in all its various guises..

And yet, if the seemingly-insurmountable hurdle up that route is the necessarily-diminishing 'G-time' per-cycle with rising RPM, here, it's the escalating cost of the input CF workload; CF force scales linearly with RPM, hence why kiiking is a 'sport', rather than 'how power stations work'.. for now, anyway.

But if using weights as pseudo-stators to earth counter-momenta is a cul de sac, then paying CF work to buy momentum from gravity * time seems the only remaining route up..

This is why i ended up resurecting the previous thread - i'm still stuck at that same impasse, of collating PE discounts into an effective KE gain. Stabilising per-cycle momentum yields across some RPM range is literally the nuts-and-bolts necessary condition for mechanical OU, period. You can't have 'excess' KE, but you may pay less PE for it, if you can circumvent N3.

To put it another way, i've being pitching direct assaults at N3, by sinking counter-momenta to gravity and accumulating the remainder. It's simple, brutishly-practical thinking: "apply a force between two equal masses, that only accelerates one of them because the other's temporarily subject to gravity".. rinse and repeat.

But playing the gravity * time game in a slightly more subtle way; what if EMGAT really means EMGAT - as in, 'no stators'.. ever.. not "transiently gravitating" ones, so no 'spin'n'brake or 'accelerate and collide' cycles, as hitherto envisioned.. no internal applications of torque, asymmetrically or otherwise, between two inertias in whatever ratio.. just, forgetting the whole "sinking counter-momentum" angle, and concentrating on the essentials of gravity, time and momentum.. particularly in relation to CF workloads / the ice-skater effect as known examples of momentum-from-gravity exploits, but always open to any others, if there are any alternatives possible (as unlikely as it may seem)..


So, while i'm not currently posting, i'm still chewing this over at a fundamental level - trying to suss the momentum-from-gravity principle that the Toys page must be describing; it's definitely losing 75% of input energy per cycle, but with a 25% per-cycle rollover that makes unity in four cycles and 125% at the fifth.. and somehow, it must be sourcing those per-cycle momentum gains from gravity * time, for constant per-cycle input work / PE, at a KE value that is escalating with the net system velocity.

While i was initially a bit miffed that both my jobs are on the 'key workers' list (so everyone that probably already gets two or three holidays a year gets indefinite leave on 80% pay, whilst muggins 'ere who ain't had a holiday in years has to keep working 7 days) but now i realise how fortunate i am to be able to keep paying the rent.. i mean, aside from getting paid to ride motorcycles on empty roads all summer.. (c'mon, there's worse deals eh).. but it means i don't get a convenient 'sabbatical' to indulge my little mission, here.. thus, pending any lightning-strike inspirations, i expect i'll keep plodding along in the other thread, trying to resolve that central, essential problem of mechanical OU itself; paying fixed unit-energy cost for momentum in an accelerating rotating FoR..

If the Toys page is the map, the 'maths of OU' are the light to read it by. Not 'sacred geometry' or Dan Brown-esque esoterics..




N1.


Gravity * time breaks N1. See "kiiking".


Plying gravity to 'skew' N3 also breaks N1, but by tackling N3 head-on - and just burying the momentum in gravity. But the amount of momentum that can be buried this way is ultimately RPM-dependent. This seems a dead-end.

But in its purest - and again, entirely general, non-specific - application, gravity * time truly circumvents N3, in such a way that never tackles it head-on in the first place - a kiiker isn't propelling himself against some other mass, and then colliding with it; instead, all of the momentum is gained by one, unitary system MoI, that simply changes between falling and rising phases.

Thus, if this is a meaningful distinction in relation to deducing Bessler's exploit, then the purposes of the collisions heard from the descending side of the wheel was not to redistribute the unilaterally-skewed momentum, but rather, to break the symmetry of CF workload to RPM / net system KE. In other words, the trick to accumulating momentum from gravity * time at constant input energy cost per cycle using CF workloads / the kiiking principle somehow depends upon those collisions as part of the cycle - obviously, equalising speeds between the internally-moving part and the wheel, but for purposes of regulating CF workloads, rather than sharing back unilateral momentum gains (which may nonetheless still be an effective function, albeit a 'necessary', rather than 'sufficient', one).


So, still chipping away at it... any more updates will prolly continue in the other thread..

I'm absolutely resolved not to get distracted by any more false positives tho..

[MrVibrating]

"Sagan began with hydrogen - a dot in a circle obviously represents the simplest chemical element.."

..notwithstanding that said "intelligent aliens" probably wouldn't be 'mammalian'.


Or so juvenile.

[MrVibrating]

Ain't starting a thread for it but you been seeing these '5G conspiracy' theorists? Are people really this stupid? What next - that it's caused by ambulances, or ventilators?

For all the idiots - any virus that attacks eukaryotes (of which we're arguably the pinnacle example) is by definition highly advanced and evolved; to suppose that one might spontaneously self-assemble via digital radio transmissions somehow coaxing disembodied RNA bases in the environment to bond together in just the right way to form a human coronavirus, would be akin to a brand-new Lexus rolling out of a junkyard that's just been hit by lightning..

The simplest-possible viruses (that might attack microbes or plants, say) could concievably emerge randomly in the environment, but by their nature, most have to evolve by incremental adaptations over many generations and species, if not geological time scales.

The virus has been sequenced already - the Chinese released the full genomes months ago. It's definitively a virus, and nothing whatsoever to do with digital radio.. duh.

Hope everyone's staying safe and sensible.. x

[Senax]

..so, Fletch... any more o' dem there suggestions? Credit where it's due eh..

And where's Grimer - he ought to be all over this..?

...

I agree with you. One doesn't have to go to the third derivative. One can
extract energy from the second.

The trick is to take the strain energy (inertia energy) out and put it back in a asymmetric fashion.

Well done.

Go carefully on that bike of yours. ;-)

[WaltzCee]

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]

.
Sent my web-crawling bot after something & it came back with this!

Stupid bot.

@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.

[WaltzCee]

.
.

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

[JUBAT]

Wow...thats some serious stuff there WC. Rotten human being kind of stuff.

[WaltzCee]

Wow...thats some serious stuff there WC. Rotten human being kind of stuff.

I think it is, Jubat. Jala (James Alan ) is one of many screen names we've seen.

I think I'll notify the cheif of police in Richmond.

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

Here is the quote & link where James claims his father taught him the Nazi tactics he uses here at Bessler wheel today.

[WaltzCee]

.
.
Dr When, could you answer a few questions here.

Not sure what to say. Native Englishers aren't better.

• I look at the fact English unites the centers of commerce around the world, a sort of anti-tower of Babel. How is a common world language bad?

And working together to promote Bessler isn't allowed. It's all about who is better.
You guys know who I don't like.

• No we don't. Who is that, Dr When?

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. .

• Could you start a thread and teach us some of the things your daddy taught you?
  

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

Others might have questions.

[WaltzCee]

.
.
Ewe want to flip the script & put your words in my mouth, James-Alan?

There's not much to talk about because as has been said, what I'm building won't work. And considering that waltzcee has said he is going to kill
me and yet doesn't get banned from the forum, makes me wonder how much you guys really hate me. After all, I got banned for building when
apparently I wasn't supposed to pursue Bessler's Wheel.
And since I am going to create a detail library for the parts my build will use I'll have plenty to do to keep me busy. That way I can get in the habit
of building by print (make parts according to a blueprint).

I think that is motivated by my being 1/2 Norwegian and waltzcee being a real American who believes he has authority over me. If no one else
has been openly threatened with being killed then it is white supremacy at its finest. And yet the problem is all most people said is "it can't work",
"failed build", etc. And that's the response when I was willing to work with people? And yet I was the problem for building according to Bessler's clues.

You have crossed a Rubicon.

[WaltzCee]

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.

[JUBAT]

>I think I'll notify the chief of police in Richmond.

It might be worth it. These are some outlandish claims and aren't to be ignored in this day of hate speech on social media. Death threats are not to be taken lightly. I personally won't have anything to do with any racial superiority talk - namely Nazi modus operandi.

That stuff was fought against and defeated and so even though pockets of sympathizers exist, it's generally not tolerated and culminates in prison sentences for those who act on its ideology.

This is filthy rotten human stuff.

[WaltzCee]

.
Posted December 16, 2013
.
https://www.woodtalkonline.com/topic/12 ... ers-wheel/

As for me, I told the gal I know that I want to change the V.A.'s policy concerning hearing loss. Mine has kept me from having a family and as the police have let me know, they think I'm a criminal or something. Stereotypes are very difficult to over come.

It seems the perp considers himself a lady's man. "the gal"? one single "gal"?

Who calls women "gals" in this century?
.
up on crippled creek
.

.
his crippled wheel sprung a leak?