Blood From Stone

[ME]

CC...sigh.
Do not disturb that fog!
I wrote what I did, ...
so you wouldn't have to.
Yet you did.
Welcome to the club.

So, what's it you wanna to discuss?
We could try to figure out the force-vectors of Raj's schematic that got posted a page or two ago? I suspect it should rotate the other way around.

[Fletcher]

Hi CC .. I believe we all reach our saturation point at some stage.

Some like raj are IMO immovable objects in their views on Torque relationship to GPE asymmetry potential in a closed system. So be it.

Others like Mr V come at the problem of a gravity powered Bessler type wheel from perhaps a different perspective. Reexamining that which some may have consigned to the bin. I kinda like it cos he voluntarily shares all his research and uses a sim. His processes make me have to review what I think I know; and gives me a little hope that he might see something that myself and countless others have failed to find with inertia. That would be worthwhile. The Laws of Physics are described in the language of math and predict inescapable symmetry. That applies to gravity wheels and inertia wheels AFAIK. Leave no stone unturned seems like the only option if either of those was what B. used.

So I am caught in a tough place at times. I want to keep it real but not always be raining on someone's parade. It can get annoying for everyone. A little shove every now and then is ok I'm thinking. Who knows, Mr V just might pull off the literally unthinkable. As long as his stamina and will holds.

[ovyyus]

A little shove every now and then is ok I'm thinking.

Careful Fletcher, MrV's ignore list is built on 'little shoves'. I dare you :P

I still think MrV needs a 'select all members' button on his ignore function... for the sake of efficiency.

[raj]

GIGO?

[ME]

The Laws of Physics are described in the language of math and predict inescapable symmetry.

The wide open door, let's write it out for the fun of it:

However one feels about the "current state" of Physics or that "approximate and incorrect" Math, this specific simulator on display is using that same but idealized version of that math (even though it can be tweaked with calculated friction, and programmed to "over-perform").
So "over-unity" in that setting is either a bug, or caused by deliberate programming.
Why? Because "unity" is exactly what makes this and most other physics simulators stable. It solves the equations by step-wise estimating and lowering exactly those "off-unity-errors" until they're zero. This "zero" is precisely the equal sign in those equations and WM2D uses Kutta-Merson integration to approach it as best as possible.
Unity by design.
One way of verifying the necessity of such "zero" is by simply deriving that KE-formula as MrV promised.

- - - - - -

This reply is directed mainly to fellow-users like "Silent".

For your own sake, please post your own design-attempts in your own topic before it drowns in someone else's.
It doesn't necessarily mean you get more or better public, but at least it is in your own setting. You can always remain a fan in this topic.
Besides some possible praise, just be prepared that any conclusion will most likely be that such design will not and can not work!! After your own serious attempt of explanation, ask "why".
Because when you understand the "why" (agreed or not) then you also know the point of attention.
So when your design fails beyond expectation, then at least you have some pointers to figure out where it went wrong so you'll have some tools to climb your own learning curve... and then find a better design, or doom yourself by repeating the same.
We are all fallible. So if your thing works in real life anyway, despite what we all may say, then you also already know what to address in order to explain your stuff to the outside-world (expect a disaster when you're not really sure).

That's the win-win, as I see it, we can offer on this forum... Besides some occasional historic information, the rest is usually non-sense.

- - - - - -

GIGO...[Garbage I/O]

Also, don't underestimate one's garbage.
Someone throws away an old unworkable computer: another extracts perfectly fine components, or personal data, or literally gold. Also, Biology would seriously not work without 'garbage'.

I'm honestly very sure MrVibrating is learning a lot. The problem starts when on a forum like this other people start to get blinded by neat graphics, unverifiable maths and become bombarded by words like "over-unity" and "self rotating"... Despite funny entertainment, it also needs other signals.

On a broader spectrum. In this post-truth era, as mentioned earlier, we need all the critical thoughts we can muster.
And why not start here because a wheel does not become perpetual by mere words and fiction. We may wish, but that's the same issue.

Hence for on-topic practicalities (page 2 I think), replace V's actuator with a spring, to get some initial push, and see if the calculus still works out as planned. I know it's less spectacular but otherwise I question: what's the point?

[MrVibrating]

Right, so repeating the above procedure, here's the results of the 2nd 90°, picking up where the first left off:




Initial energy = 16.43038 J net KE, plus 3.33197 J of sprung PE, from the first 90° above.

Thus the system begins with a total energy of 19.76235 J, from a drop in GPE of 19.6133 J, plus an initial kick-start of 0.25 J. Basically, we begin at unity..


Final net KE at BDC:

• 65.50184 J of rotational KE


Input energy for this second half is:

• actuator power * time = 23.29889 J, of which:

• CF work was 29.48272 J

...so the actuators have used less energy to overcome CF force, than the work so performed! How much less?

29.48272 - 23.29889 = 6.18383 J.

Aha! But we already had 3.33197 J of that stored as PE from the first half, so we actually have 6.18383 - 3.33197 = 2.85186 J of free work from nowhere.

Where the hell did that come from, right? How could 3.33197 J of PE allow us to do 6.18383 J of extra work? Who'd've thunk it?

Yet there it is...

..finally...

..OU in one hit, by the time the weight's finished dropping! No need to crawl through a loss zone!

'ckin sweet. Now we have the kind of performance that can replicate a Bessler wheel..

We've dropped the 1 kg weight by the 4 meter diameter, so spent 39.2266 J of GPE. Let's deduct that from the 65.50184 J of RKE:

• 65.50184 - 39.2266 = 26.27524 J

..so 26.27524 J of our KE hasn't come from GPE.

Of that, we know the actuators spent 23.29889 J, so:

• 26.27524 - 23.29889 = 2.97635 J

..so again, calculated from the GPE and actuator input energy, we're almost 3 J over unity by the time the weight's finished descending.

The system simply has more KE than the energy that has been given to it.


So, from there at 6 o' clock BDC, we just need to let the weight coast around 180° back up to 12 o' clock TDC, to complete the first cycle - then we can put a final cost on how much energy's been spent, to buy how much angular momentum:




..no integrals to take as nothing else happens; so we arrive back at the starting position with 26.27555 J of RKE, and 14.49843 kg-m-rad/sec of momentum.

From 65.50184 J of RKE at BDC, we repaid 39.2266 J of GPE, to leave:

• 65.50184 - 39.2266 = 26.27524 J of KE left over from the first cycle - so good agreement with the 26.27555 metered remainder - along with:

• 14.49843 kg-m-rad/sec of angular momentum

So after completing the GPE interaction, we've paid:

• 23.29889 / 14.49843 = 1.6 J per kg-m-rad/s

..of work against CF. On the descent, we gained:

• 22.89137 kg-m-rad/s of momentum from gravity

..but on the way back up we only gave back:

• 22.89137 - 14.49843 = 8.39294 kg-m-rad/s

..so the ratio of 'down' vs 'up' momentum exchanged was:

• 22.89137 / 8.39294 = 2.72:1


So back at TDC, done and dusted with the GPE interaction, we have all of the 23.29889 J we spent on the actuators still there as RKE, plus the extra 3 J we gained from converting 3 J of initial GKE - passively - into sprung PE, during the first 90°.



26.27555 / 23.29889 = 112 % OU on the first cycle.

It looks watertight and fully causal (no frickin' magic) - the system's all but hermetically sealed, input energy's metered up 8 ways from Sunday and all metrics cross-ref consistently.

Now we can start thinking about designing actual builds..

[MrVibrating]

GIGO?

Absolutely. And i'm totally fallible.

This is why we share research. So anyone interested can retrace our steps. Find the error. That simple.

I got the idea last night. I tested it for the first time this afternoon. Since then i've been re-measuring at ever-higher accuracies. Posting results as fast as i can acquire 'em. No secrets, no BS.

I need no assistance - it's welcome anytime, but i'm not asking anyone for help, nor begging interest. Just wanna solve the case. It looks done. I'm knackered. It is what it is.

[MrVibrating]

Hi CC .. I believe we all reach our saturation point at some stage.

Some like raj are IMO immovable objects in their views on Torque relationship to GPE asymmetry potential in a closed system. So be it.

Others like Mr V come at the problem of a gravity powered Bessler type wheel from perhaps a different perspective. Reexamining that which some may have consigned to the bin. I kinda like it cos he voluntarily shares all his research and uses a sim. His processes make me have to review what I think I know; and gives me a little hope that he might see something that myself and countless others have failed to find with inertia. That would be worthwhile. The Laws of Physics are described in the language of math and predict inescapable symmetry. That applies to gravity wheels and inertia wheels AFAIK. Leave no stone unturned seems like the only option if either of those was what B. used.

So I am caught in a tough place at times. I want to keep it real but not always be raining on someone's parade. It can get annoying for everyone. A little shove every now and then is ok I'm thinking. Who knows, Mr V just might pull off the literally unthinkable. As long as his stamina and will holds.

You know i'm fully committed - to actually solving it, not just trying for the fun of it.

Momentum symmetry's been broken since last year - it's just taken this long to suss how to switch it up into KE gains, but it was always an inevitability..

Don't worry, solving these kinds of paradoxes is what i'm built for.. ;)

And i'm far from done when this thing's finished..

[cloud camper]

I vote for a spring to replace the powered actuators.

There is too big of a chance to misread/misinterpret or mislabel diagrams in WM2D. Just because you label a diagram what you think it is telling you is no guarantee that is what is actually portrayed.

As the rpms increase, required power done by the actuators will go up by the sqare of rpm so that means calculus to integrate the area under the curve assuming the curve is even correct as it will be a sinusoidal curve mostly positive (above the x axis) but having increasing frequency and amplitude.

I do like and appreciate Mr V's methodical approach but am reluctantly forced to bring up that on Mr V's last proposal he had no idea the work involved was determined by the integral of the force over distance and it resulted in unity not overunity as Mr V continually claimed.

This was discovered by Dwayne Furcurequs' careful analysis not mine.

And it's totally OK to make errors with the scientific method as long as you fess up when caught.

With Mr V we are still waiting but maybe he's just taking his time to thank Dwayne for finding his fatal error.

So to eliminate having to determine work done by the powered actuators, replacing them with a spring is the best workaround, as ME suggests.

But Mr V is not going to like that idea as that will mean having to add a stator and cam timing mechanism which then takes us out of unicorn land!

[MrVibrating]

OK, so i tried further raising the accuracy on the original 15 second run;

• after 16 consecutive cycles, the gain still stood at 3 J - 415 J in for 418 J out

Sim attached, for anyone else taking data..


This could be interpreted in one of two ways:

• the '3 J' correlation to the gain measured from the high-precision sim of the first cycle is significant; real or error, it only arises from conditions exclusive to that first cycle;

• or else, the correlation is purely incidental, and further raising or reducing the precision will continue varying the 'gain' accordingly..

So i'm now gonna concentrate on analysing the second cycle, from the precise moment it departs from TDC, back to its return.

To get further accuracy, i'm gonna try raising the number of integration steps per simulation frame, to 1,000, again using every last byte of memory to spread the interaction across the maximum possible number of frames in a single sim.

This should reveal whether the 'gain' conditions actually recur after the initial cycle...

[sleepy]

Hey silent,
I am so encouraged to hear that you are building and observing your designs. That practice will gain you more knowledge more quickly than sitting and pondering. Now that you've started, take lots of notes and lots of pictures of your builds. I would have saved myself so much time and effort if I had catalogued my designs from the start. Carry on!

[MrVibrating]

Cyc # 2:


Attached sim optimised for data acq. (long runtime)


initial energy = 26.27676 J

final energy = 52.42787 J

52.42787 - 26.27676 = 26.15111 J

So net energy increase in the second cycle is just 0.12565 J - one eighth of a Joule - less than that of the first cycle.

Given that the first cycle began with a ¼ J jump-start, the second one's arguably gained one eighth of a Joule more, rather than less..

Actuator P*t = 91.53935329 J

CF P*t = 26.15109899 J

The latter measure shows excellent consistency with the 26.15111 J rise in net KE.

Net system momentum increased from 14.48886 kg-m-rad/s, to 20.47982 kg-m-rad/s, an increase of 5.99096 kg-m-rad/s.

This is obviously much less than we gained in the first cycle:

14.48886 / 5.99096 = 2.42x


..yet for close to the same CF workload and net energy rise. In other words, it looks like the energy cost of momentum is squaring up with velocity..

The CF workload for cyc#1 was 23 J, here it's risen to 26 J..

But look at that actuator energy integral - in the first cycle it was reporting 10% less energy had been spent, than the actual CF work done. This seemed consistent with the hypothesis, of subsidising the CF work with PE grabbed from prior GKE..

..yet how do we get from there, to a 91.5 J energy draw, for nearly-equal CF work done, and net KE rise?

It's exactly 3.5x more energy used, than work done:

• 91.53935329 / 26.15109899 = 3.500

So system energy has risen by 26 J, equal to the net input CF work done..

..where's the other 91.53935329 - 26.15109899 = 65.38 J gone?

Remember, there's supposed to be no collisions, and no friction.

The closest numbers that crop up during the interaction are at 6 o' clock BDC, where net KE peaks at 183.30892 J, split exactly 50/50 between 91.65446 J of RKE, and 91.65446 J of radial KE:



Then the radial KE goes to zero as the masses park up in the center for the rest of the cycle:



The intention is that this returns the radial KE of the masses back to the actuators...

..but if instead the actuators are suddenly locking, then we'd've introduced an effective inelastic collision via the back door..

This has to be the problem, and solution: switch to smoothly accelerating and decelerating the radial motions! That should neatly return all KE to PE without dissipating most of it...


...still, this only further raises the question of how in the flip the 15 second run could still be 3 J OU after 16 consecutive cycles, if it was also dissipating all of its radial KE each cycle?


This fecking interaction will be the death of me..


Gonna re-work the mechanics to eliminate any sudden radial seizures. Make the accelerations a function of rising system RPM, and the P*t integral should start getting the memo's re. the whole 'regen braking' thing..


..presumably, raising the number of integration steps from 1 per frame to 1,000, has introduced an effective 'zero-time' deceleration that was previously being 'smoothed over' at coarser integration intervals.

Still, good to know, let's see if we can't fix it and continue..

[Sam Peppiatt]

I find that I'm developing a deep hatred for this forum. I wish there was some way I could burn it down!!

How can I get off of it??

Sam Peppiatt

[TheVisitorV]

@Sam Peppiatt , find the answer or give up...no other way around it.

[ME]

I find that I'm developing a deep hatred for this forum. I wish there was some way I could burn it down!!

How can I get off of it??

If it takes a little myth and ritual to get us through a night that seems endless, who among us cannot sympathize and understand?

We long to be here for a purpose. Even though, despite much self-deception, none is evident. The significance of our lives and our fragile planet is then determined by our own wisdom and courage. We are the custodians of life's meaning. We long for parents to care for us, to forgive us of our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes.
But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better, by far, to embrace the harsh reality than a reassuring fable.

Modern science has been a voyage into the unknown, with a lesson in humility waiting at every stop.
Our common sense intuitions can be mistaken.
Our preferences don't count.
We do not live in a privileged reference frame.
If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSrL0BXsO40