Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference

[WaltzCee]

I have been busy making yet another failure.

I have boxes of them.

My goal was to get a legitimate copy of wm2d. One of the features it has is without your
permission they can review your model step by step as you build it. They have pythonic
exploites built in. Just to help them improve their product.

I thought I'd put it on an off line laptop and parse thru my ideas kind of quickly. That's one
crushed dream.

One approach you might take is to consider your wheel a product and reality the
customer. When reality objects, "almost, but not quite. You ran out of energy!" Maybe
PrimeMover 1.0 needs an upgrade to 2.0.

A model billing itself as the one where weights fall up not down is going to hear very loud
protests from reality. No sell. Maybe solved by Prime Mover version google.0.

[Fletcher]

Nice build RH ..

As Walt says if we could get a free or subsidized lift cost the energy budget would be in our favour.

All our models and sims must conform to reality. Which is that unless you can find a way to break the Law of Levers and get more GPE gain than GPE loss then there must be another way to effectively get the same result.

Bill has sort of taken the far right position for years. Just make it a heat engine derivative to do the lifting for us. And that seems very logical at many levels. Except in my mind for the definition of what is "true mechanical PM" and Karl's various testimony. I wish I could get around those obstacles but I have difficulty accepting this was the solution to the lift, for various reasons. And I'm too dumb to give up without some more fight.

So my reasoning was what could that elusive 'other way' be ?

And I came up with let's build a torque canceling or mitigating system (one or two wheel like structures interacting) so there is a torque nulling or bias. Then find a Prime Mover to cause a rotation force.

The idea being that torque can give and also take away equally. How we all know this ! So let's reduce its underlying effects so the the Prime Mover torque can overpower it and make the underlying structural torques less of a player that always strictly balances the energy budget - no exceptions allowed on the energy bean-counters watch :7(

I don't believe I've read any other theory that addresses the central issues of a runner format, other than those who say find a special mechanical lever arrangement that breaks the Law of Levers.

I think the problem is deeper than that and needs a different more subtle approach.

All The Best - I enjoy your sims and your skills and patience have improved out of sight - well done. Better than spending months and dollars in the workshop, imo. If you survive the learning process. It's funny how your analytical skills often improve along with the sim building skills hand-in-hand. I can tell that you are thinking and simplifying down to bare essentials to test a hypothesis and KISS !

[Robinhood46]

I certainly have improved my skills. I often laugh out load when i look back to find a detail. My early animations with the screen shots rotating really are pathetic. I can thank Coronavirus for forcing me to work on the pc.
Now that i can get the sort of movements I'm looking for, i will need to go over a few that were animations to see how they behave as simulations.
It is much easier with sims but i do prefer real builds. It would have taken me years to cover all my recent attempts and they would not be as clear for sharing my thoughts as the sims. Even if they are failures.

If Bessler's words about a few grammes more or less not making any difference, are true, then i would have thought when we do (if) find the answer, it will be very clear that we have it.
There is a simple detail that we can't see. I think it is what we know that is stopping us from seeing it, and un-knowing what we know is not an easy task. We need to understand what is going on in it's brut form and not in the way we have learnt to understand it. We cannot see the mistake we have made, if we use the mistaken understanding to look for it. If Bessler was not a fraud, which i believe he wasn't, then we must accept that PM's impossibility is an illusion. Everything appears to show clearly that it is impossible. Our perception of reality must be flawed.
The only way to find the answer in my opinion, is to take a walk through the looking glass. Hard hats are not necessary the other side, although i would recommend a tin foil one.

[Fletcher]

LOL, I agree .. he is still one-step ahead of us.

Because he saw the problem and the potential solution differently, and realized why ALL the others had been wrong.

And that's what it will take for each of us to find a runner.

[Fletcher]

I think B's. true mechanical PM solution IS simple. He said so, and so did the only other known person to have seen inside his runner, Karl. Tho I strongly believe that B's. brother Gottfried must have also known how they worked because he was his long time partner in builds and confidant. He however is not recorded as saying anything about easy to understand and simple to build etc.

Probably a bad analogy is something like this ..

Newtonian mechanics and physics LAWS works well at the worldly scale. We get off this planet and into the really big and we need better theories to explain the minutiae of observations in the universe. In strolls Einstein and an expanding universe etc. Go smaller and we need a more fitting theory to explain physics at the nano level. Up steps quantum physics and probability to replace Newtonian Physics which served us well until then.

If B. did have a 'true mechanical PM principle then that reverts Newtons Laws back to a useful for most circumstances Theory.

IOW's there is a mechanical condition of arrangement in the worldly scale that allows a workaround of the known Newtonian 'Laws'. It is not that they are wrong, just not the complete story for a unique set of mechanical circumstances.

And so going back to the bad analogy. Where is the scale threshold where you ditch Newtonian Physics and swap in Quantum Physics or Astronomical Physics ? Or are they all right as far as they go if you don't push them beyond their limits, but none tells the complete story on its own in isolation. And they are all part and parcel of one true greater Law and reality. I think I'd have to conclude that.

So, if an ounce here of there does not make a jot of difference to the runners performance then the solution is not at fringe limits or scales. It is a blatant simplicity of arrangement that gives a palpable torque bias, in any position for the one-way wheels, and gathers momentum from the light push start two-way wheels.

Hence my attempt at a gross overarching theory of how torques might be manipulated in-situ to produce a theoretical overall momentum gain and initial off-balance that then continues in rotation.

Open to other suggestions or refinement !

P.S. I've flogged my share of dead horses .. thing is the horses don't like it and neither do I, hence I often remain silent unless able to prompt some abstract thinking opportunities on the problem.

[WaltzCee]

Hey Fletch

I have a model I've termed LSAM (Large Scale Atomic Model). It's a model of hydrogen.
I was so hyped to SIM it yet that isn't happening.
No prime mover. One mass. The mass isn't as important as where it is.

Another idea models the solar system with everything orbiting the earth. I know, crazy huh?

[ovyyus]

Bill has sort of taken the far right position for years. Just make it a heat engine derivative to do the lifting for us. And that seems very logical at many levels. Except in my mind for the definition of what is "true mechanical PM" and Karl's various testimony. I wish I could get around those obstacles but I have difficulty accepting this was the solution to the lift, for various reasons...

James Cox and his "true PM" clock is a quasi-proof that historical claims of perpetual motion driven by free environmental energy were not considered fraud at the time. There was obviously more 'true PM' wriggle room back then. Times have changed.

[Fletcher]

You inherently know the answer Walt. We all do !

If somethings preferred state is rotation rather than local stability then there is unequal forces pushing that continuous rotation outcome.

All things experience energy dissipative losses of non-conservative drag.

So our systems are not just of slightly unequal forces resulting in a sustained push. The inequality of torques via the sympathetic arrangement is well outside margin of error .. and forgetting to turn on Air Drag ;7)

..................

Bill ..

James Cox (1760) and his "true PM" clock is a quasi-proof that historical claims of perpetual motion driven by a free environmental energy were not considered fraud at the time. There was more 'true pm' wriggle room back then. Times have changed.

Truesup ! The problem I have is that B. claimed his was the first true mechanical PMM. Yet in DT he is aware of Cornelis Drebbel 100 years earlier.

I could believe that he miraculously managed to harness a large environmental force to provide his performance tests if it weren't for this inconvenient 'fact'. And Heron and his temple theatrics etc.

[WaltzCee]

Yeah. The solar system is equisitely elegant except when ever Uranus gets close to earth it takes a crap.

[ovyyus]

Truesup ! The problem I have is that B. claimed his was the first true mechanical PMM. Yet in DT he is aware of Cornelis Drebbel 100 years earlier.

I could believe that he miraculously managed to harness a large environmental force to provide his performance tests if it weren't for this inconvenient 'fact'. And Heron and his temple theatrics etc.

If Bessler's claim about 'true mechanical pm' is taken in the context of Drebbel's work, then you might be right. I would want to be sure of the context.

Hypothetically speaking, if Bessler harnessed some kind of aerodynamic advantage, such as a variation on your wing lift mechanism, would he call it a mechanical pm?

[WaltzCee]

You could look at as a mechanical explosion too. It's just not as interesting that way.
This crap changes the entire balance of the solar system. When it rotates 180 degrees,
it's the earth's turn.
It upchucks the crap back restoring the first state. It's like an Astable Multivibrator.
Could work.
Makes as much sense as a lot of ideas I've heard.

[Georg Künstler]

Bessler had made a true mechanical PM.
The clue is hidden behind 2 pendulums.
2 pendulums which are acting in an offset of 180 degrees.
It does not hurt any of newton laws.

So the basic is not a wheel concept, the basic is an oscillation of two pendulums, not more.

The outcome of this 2 pendulum moves are an undamped oscillation.
To what this undamped oscillation is used is on the other page.
this is the heart of any mechanical PM.

You have to look at the Apologia wheel.
And you still don't understand, Bessler said.


The Apologia wheel is a carrier of 2 pendulums, the heart.
Look at the drawing in deep, and you will see the function well balance.
It is a carrier of 2 invers Pendulums.
The masses are hanging down, but the forces are above the pivot point.
So the complete construction is top heavy, instable.
You will also see that one is arranging the other.

With 3 pendulums with the Apologoa wheel you can get the function
overweight and overweighted. A self amplified oscillator.

It is a very very clever, brilliant arrangement of pendulum weights.

[WaltzCee]

Grimmer is\was very smart and I think you stole that idea from him. I do know he
published it before you started talking about it Georg.

Now if the idea has merit

• Why don't you take it to the next level and
  produce the final proof?

Just curious. A build that worked would sell the theory to me.

[WaltzCee]

You inherently know the answer Walt. We all do !

I'm kind of slow Fletcher. I believe Bessler & Karl established the fact of Bessler's wheel
not being a fraud.

Precept upon precept.

A real smart dude once said:

• It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

Now if your 2 witnesses are liars you're screwed. I trust the integrity of Bessler & Karl.
I take them at their word.

Bessler mentioned a single mechanism would slowly move the wheel. I call that the
LSAM. A model of a hydrogen atom. I do suppose Bessler didn't fine tune it or it would
have screamed. To be seen. This model doesn't have a prime mover. I had 8 mechanisms
on the wheel virtually spinning at 9.2 million rpm. It self started.

I have figured out more gravity driven prime movers than you can shake a stick at. The
Mechanical Astable Multivibrator is just one. I'm picky though and I really don't like that
one.

Design Simulations think they have the right to look over my shoulder to see if I'm making
money with a student edition. Then no, I don't want their tool. They can take their
software and . . . :). I was so hyped, then not so much. I'm over it and moving on to plan B.

What if I wanted to learn how to make money with their stupid program? If all I wanted to
do with it was to learn established physics I'd give up on this.

I have not given up. I am going to feed these dolts pure unmitigated you know what.
That's the objective. The wheel is just the means. It's a tool.

[thx4]

Grimmer is\was very smart and I think you stole that idea from him. I do know he
published it before you started talking about it Georg.

Now if the idea has merit

• Why don't you take it to the next level and
  produce the final proof?

Just curious. A build that worked would sell the theory to me.

After some research the idea belongs to "Charly2" who gives much more details. I'm making some modifications on my current model and we'll see.
The explanation of Charly2 is very clear SHE, two free wheels and two pendulums on the same axis.... in short a small video will be more explicit LOL.

A++