Blood From Stone

[Fletcher]

Carry on Mr V .. it's your thread. It's your time and money as they say.

silent .. what he is showing is a recovery of GPE from start to finish thru 360 degrees of rotation. Even if there is not complete restitution of weights positions at this time. This is what is called a one-shot experiment. It's a helluva good start towards perhaps engineering a continuous rotating OU possibility if true.

Because he is using weights in opposition that are always at the same radius from their local 'pivot', or local center of rotation, they can only move equal distances radially in or out from that local fulcrum. That means the two opposing weights are always weight balanced around that pivot. A bit like having a scissor mech in there except one is not shown.

This is the first step towards a full restitution of positions and continuous rotation scenario, if that is possible to engineer on the fly. Because after the one-shot is stopped at 12 o'cl you could apply a little energy from some external source to move the two weights in opposition back to their original start positions. There would be no cf's or other inconveniences to deal with, just small frictional forces which don't eat much of your alleged profit.

Mr V's one-shot experiment is producing an enormous surplus of KE, for a small initial investment to get it rotating. If true that surplus KE could be used elsewhere as free energy after restoring the weights originating positions.

The one-shot could be built (controlled by whatever means) as a POP of the the sim and Mr V's analysis, before looking for the engineering to fully restore both GPE and weight positions for continuous rotation. IMO.

Thank you, that's a much more reasonable summary!

As you note, re-extending the masses by sliding them back outwards should be GPE-free, but will also be re-doubling the MoI, so we should end up with whatever KE we began with, plus another 100% of it mirrored as radial sprung PE.

I'll try replacing the motors with angular springs first; if that works, then we can try replacing the actuators with radial linear springs too..

Err .. actually it's exactly what I said earlier, but ok.

Push on ;7)

[MrVibrating]

Because he is using weights in opposition that are always at the same radius from their local 'pivot', or local center of rotation, they can only move equal distances radially in or out from that local fulcrum. That means the two opposing weights are always weight balanced around that pivot. A bit like having a scissor mech in there except one is not shown.

For clarity, the results appear to show that the instant the orbiting torques are applied, the actual mass radii become irrelevant..


..hence the MoI calcs i was doing last night (last post on p.34) explore the possibility of extending the two masses unequal distances - so one moves say 2 m inwards to park in the orbital center as before, whilst the other can be extended arbitrarily further out..

So instead of simply halving / doubling MoI & thus KE, it seems we could just as easily switch by a factor of four, eight or whatever - the instant torque's applied, it's just two half-kg masses at 2 m radius, no matter how far out one mass may be relative to the other..

Since MoI squares with radius, but only sums linearly when raising the 'mass' component, lighter, wider systems thus accommodating more extreme MoI changes should produce much higher efficiencies than heavier ones of equal size..

So, instead of scissorjacks affixed symmetrically about their centers, consider asymmetric ones, maybe at a 4:1 ratio - so as, say, 1 kg moves 2 meters into the orbital center, its 1 kg partner moves 8 meters outwards - 4x the radius means 16x the MoI..!

Like Georg says, we're barely scratched the surface..

[Fletcher]

For clarity, the results appear to show that the instant the orbiting torques are applied, the actual mass radii become irrelevant..

From your on screen sim animations the jump in rpm and KE increases instantaneously, like in one frame, just from engaging the orbital torques - nothing else.

From those same animations it does not matter whether the opposing masses move radially or not. The result is the same.

What appears to matter to the sim is only that the orbital torque is applied !

And that torque currently comes from a motor IINM.

I'm tryin to identify the cause and effect relationship here .. e.g take out the motor and replace it with a physical device that gives the same or similar torque timing and profile - does it still give similar results ? If less then it must be due to a motor input of energy I would suspect.

FWIW a clue to the KE instantaneously doubling etc appears to be related to the disk angle maintained after torque is applied relative to the main disk.

Good luck with your research.

[MrVibrating]

You're not wrong mate - it's astonishing to see what appears to be an all-but infinite acceleration of a physical lump of mass.

I've used my usual trick of keeping the disc masses two digits below the number of displayed digits, so the numbers only show the effects of the four ½ kg masses - the rotor discs are still included in my calcs, hence no rounding errors accumulate between them vs WM's, but if you enable "integration error warnings" under the accuracy settings, it will throw a warning about their relative lightness..

..however as a sanity check i tried raising them to 1 kg each, and this has no effect on the apparently-infinite acceleration! The rotors still appear to change speed instantaneously..

So physical lumps of mass, switch between two speeds in zero time - between consecutive simulation frames! Clicking one frame forwards & backwards on the player controls you can watch MoI, physical speed and KE all 'flip' spontaneously!

Almost as amazing as the apparent CoE failure..

The thing is however, that MoI appears to literally flip the instant the rotors cease their real rotation. They're 'rotating' only relative to the central rotor - even tho they're not objectively rotating relative to the outside world, they still have angular inertia, which the central rotor is being torqued against (since rotation = acceleration). However whilst general motion may be relative, angular motion is absolute (CF is either present or not), therefore so is angular momentum...

..and there's the rub; activating the motors instantly halves the orbital MoI - and that orbital mometum's conserved - and instantly ceases the real axial rotation/s, and their momentum's also conserved, and transferred over to the central rotor. So net momentum's constant, and velocity must instantly double the moment the axial rotations cease.

I've also tried sanity checks on using the "velocity" input for motors - as opposed to "acceleration" or "torque" or "angle"; maybe that causes an effective N3 break? Motors applying torque without counter-torque would also produce OU results.. However, crudely attach one rotor to the edge of another of equal size in a fresh sim, stick a motor on it and tell it to start rotating at x speed after n seconds delay; we duly see the central rotor get kicked back by the counter-torque, and momentum is conserved:



..besides, if we had an inadvertent N3 break like that, net momentum would have to increase rather than being conserved.. so that doesn't appear to be our issue.

Early attempts with springs have proven messy thus far - Hooke's law and the changing force w/ displacement is the awkward part, as i'd anticipated... but this is an engineering challenge, not a 'physics' one per se.. Will keep at it tho.

Gotta go ride motorbikes now (hand's still bust, dreading it but gotta pay rent). Back later tonight..

[Fletcher]

All the best sorting it out .. outta sight out of mind for a week myself.

[MrVibrating]

Have a good one geezer.. with any luck i'll have some kind of resolution by the time you're back..

[WaltzCee]

Go for it cobber. If it's to good to be true it probably is, comes to mind, but I'm a natural skeptic unless I checked something a hundred times a hundred different ways.

I'll try and find an old sim I built years ago where I had basically a pendulum with parallel wings attached that fell under gravity and produced Lift and Drag forces from the wings. These Lift and Drag forces were generated in Output boxes and fed into a side view of the aerodynamic wheel pendulum because when they built up they snapped the wings together and thru a "pull mech" and stator pulled the wheel pendulum forward increasing its speed even further (positive feedback). You could see the L & D forces building etc as wing speeds increased etc.

These disembodied L & D forces were then 'cloned' into the face view of the wheel pendulum where the dual wings could not be shown to close or open i.e. they were linked to the control forces.

You can watch the sim in action and see the forces developing and being transferred elsewhere. Look into the properties and follow things around to get a feel for it if you want. Maybe you can find a use for a similar application in your approach.

If I find it tonight I'll edit this post with the attachment. Ok got it. Wings start just off upright and fall CCW.

I just found this thread and dusted it off. It could get interesting.
https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 464#163464

[WaltzCee]

Mr V started the thread yet he might not mind if it gets hijacked.

This thread is in the usual ricochet rabbit format. It's all over.
Never can tell where it might lead your train of thought. I'm going
to give it a read.

I have a couple flux-capacitators on order from China and that's holding up my build.
They're special order and essential to create the warp bubble surrounding the mass
creating the super-luminal orbit of my hydrogen model.

All you have to do Walt is show how 44 & 48 can be made into runners.

A starter for 10 - add some lifting force so the transfer wheel and the elevator run faster to keep up delivery of balls - pure and simple ;7)

Fletcher
I once incurred the wrath of a member for suggesting all the MT's work,
yet batteries are not included. I'll be silent about their personal details.

I have different, simpler ideas than the ones Bessler suggested for an
out of balance wheel to hook up some batteries to.

[WaltzCee]

I don't know if you meant to pick up your idea here or somewhere else yet I have
a thought about the MT's. I blame Oystein for this train of thought.

The MT's are the medium or canvas Bessler used to encode his understanding
of perpetual motion.

• One thing I learned from Oystein was Bessler would layer ideas on top of the real clue. If
  one stops at at some 'answer' thinking the have discovered something, they just might be
  a clue short of the actual answer.

Oystein is very smart. Unfortunately for the brainiacs, they're going to have to settle for
2nd place.

At best.
2nd place isn't too bad.

I yield the floor to the fine and somewhat handsome bloke from down under.

[Fletcher]

I think Bill's busy atm. So I'll step up.

I think I'll start a new topic because I think it deserves a topic of its own (easier to search later).

I would like us to explore further what Bessler said in DT that I highlighted in RH's thread 1st June 2021.

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 629#181629

I've always been a bit fuzzy about what Bessler attributed to Drebbel and where B. is talking about himself post Drebbel.

I read it again yesterday digitally and in hard copy (John's book). And I'm still unsure but think I have it down now. The quotation marks in the original Latin don't seem to follow thru to the English translation exactly, or I've missed something someone else can set straight.

I will be interested in your opinions and observations.

Bit busy atm so until then.

[WaltzCee]

Some background on Cornelis Drebbel.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelis_Drebbel

Couldn't find anything about CD's perpetual motion machine.

Looking forward to your new thread.

[ovyyus]

...And so, firstly, I shall relate the cause of FIRE,
and then the nature and operation of it; secondly, the properties
of other ELEMENTS; and, thirdly, the nature of COLD, the
cause of perpetual Motion, the essence of the Sun, and the
reason for the movements of Sky, Moon, Sea and Earth; finally,
the causes of the ebb and flow of the Tides, Thunder, Lightning,
Rainstorms, Winds, and the reasons why all these things grow
and multiply...

Interesting that Bessler would lump together the nature of COLD with the cause of pm, after offering to explain the cause of FIRE and the properties of other ELEMENTS. It all seems a bit thermodynamic.

[eccentrically1]

IINM, he didn’t write that section of DT. I seem to remember JC said those were quotes?

[eccentrically1]

I read the link Fletcher added. It does seem like those are Bessler's words after the quote of CD's letter.

I remember I also thought that was a curious passage; the way it sounded "thermodynamic".

[WaltzCee]

I read the link Fletcher added. It does seem like those are Bessler's words after the quote of CD's letter.

I remember I also thought that was a curious passage; the way it sounded "thermodynamic".

I've read it several times. It seems Bessler picks up here:

And so may it please YOUR
MAJESTY to examine the truth of my claims herein made. My
script is a young shoot grafted on to the tree of perpetual motion
with a true understanding of the elements; an insight into the
nature of things which will enable investigators to reach a lasting
store of knowledge in their quest to understand the marvels of
nature, and the possibilities opened up to us by this gift.

The emboldened text is the beginning of Bessler's sales job. I suppose that's where he
begins to lay it on heavily, speaking way out of his paygrade.

• and after I walk on water I'll commence to raise the dead.

Bessler was using his wheel as a calling card to sell the idea he understood any
number of fantastical ideas.

I think the calling card was real yet wouldn't buy the whole crock.
I do like the technique.