Blood From Stone

[Georg Künstler]

Hi daanopperman,

correct, you have decribed an other version of the parasitic oscillation.
The bob is allowed to swing and in addition the pendulum.
When the pendulum is swinging also the bob is swinging.

From beginning the spring is under stress from gravity by the bob and the pendulum weight.

A swinging of the pendulum has a feedback on the spring.

[WaltzCee]

Hi all ,

What would happen if you stick a spring under a floating pendulum bob that could not support the weight of the bob in the vertical . If the bob reaches it's max hight , it's weight in the vertical is a component of it's mass , and the spring would then be able to lift the bob to a higher position on the pendulum , this will cause the pendulum to increase it's velocity for a higher swing of the bob . It would literally be like someone is pumping a swing .

If you are really wondering I recommend testing your idea in a simulation. One can vary so
many different values it isn't funny. Once you have fine-tuned a design to your satisfaction
the next obvious step would be to build it or publish it so others could take a wack at it.

If you post a pic of an idea, someone might be willing to SIM it.

[WaltzCee]

I've been quite busy with the legitimate copy I have of wm2d running my ideas thru their
paces, Daan. I've attached the present iteration of LSAM's (Large Scale Atomic Model)
CoM.

Although I'm fighting a learning curve as I'm fighting to get this hairbrained idea to work, I
have an excellent idea what would happen if I built it. The way this is looking, the system
CoM drops then spins around mostly left of center. Rotation is negative (clockwise).

The path of the mechanism shows a clear out of balance though. I modeled carbon not
hydrogen.

My main point is at least I have some real information. Looks like a deformed little dipper. I'm
not finished tweaking this idea. I want to make hydrogen work if I can. Bessler's record claims
one mech slowly turns.

[WaltzCee]

I think I might have managed to rip the space-time continuum of the matrix mechanically.
Precise tuning of the synchronizer circuitry feeding the poly-phased resonator seems
mechanically possible. The plan is to sync these bursts in an additive parasitic manner then
kabloie! It's going to be the mother of all prime movers.



This must be a common graph for those working with a SIM. Nothing special to see here.

[Georg Künstler]

WaltzCee wrote:

I think I might have managed to rip the space-time continuum of the matrix mechanically.
Precise tuning of the synchronizer circuitry feeding the poly-phased resonator seems
mechanically possible. The plan is to sync these bursts in an additive parasitic manner then
kabloie! It's going to be the mother of all prime movers.

Now you see that it is not only Bessler.
additive parasitic manner

Besslers solution is only the mechanical one.

The function is also used from our tax department and it is called VAT.
Synchronized on your consume, coupled on your consume, parasitic.

You are on the right track.

The output must partly be used and referred back to the input so that you will get a positive feedback loop.
G_c = A/(1-AB)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback

[WaltzCee]

I was only making fun of your idea, Georg. There are 2 things you'll find about any out of
balance you can find with most mechanisms that lead to one conclusion. OB is frequency
dependent. The greater the velocity

• The more the OB shifts to the keel point &
  The more its magnitude decreases.

Also the phase changes between the spikes of energy. Adding piles of energy in a wheel
would be like balancing a baseball bat in your palm, then putting a bat on top of that bat
and balancing both bats.

Theoretically it's possible yet practically never going to happen.

Best of luck with that nonsense.

I found out something very odd recently. With no frictions set some mechanics have a
dampening effect on rotation. Your design might be fighting itself.

[WaltzCee]

apologies for letting everyone hanging at this point:

Part of the negotiations involve a restructuring of time and space.

I tried. I failed. There is no way the Sovereign of the Universe is going to restructure
time and space just so your ugly wheels work. Not happening. Picture the ensuing
chaos that would cause. Up would be down, sometimes, & down would be up.

The obvious answer to this delema is for you ugly people to change your thinking.
All I can do is point out the obvious. I can't think for you.

More to come . . .

[MrVibrating]

Uh huh .. In some ways I'm a simple person. Or I fool myself into trying to be. It takes a lot of effort.

And so I parse the problem into this ,,, and possible workarounds to the roadblocks.

1. Gravity is conservative e.g. an object of mass in say pendulum form, which is free to fall under 'g' acceleration from a known height, cannot and will not gain more GPE (mgh) than it started with. At any vertical height loss the GPE (mgh) lost will exactly equal the KE (m1/2v^2) gained [not including dissipative energy losses due frictions etc].

*To have KE exceed (>) GPE loss there must be an energy intervention and addition of force to the pendulum bob.

2. Law of Levers => f1 x d2 = f2 x d1. The mathematical assumption is that any horizontal movement about a fulcrum creates a torque. However the resultant torque translated to KE does not contravene condition 1. at any comparable vertical height i.e. GPE lost = KE gained.

**To have f1 x d2 > f2 x d1 there must be an energy intervention and addition of force to the leverage factors.

Bessler in MT seems to suggest that many and varied OB designs could be runners with the addition of various structures and apparatus. Two glaring examples being MT's 44 and 48 which are not traditional lever-weight designs by a far stretch. Clearly for them to be runners the delivery mechanics must be spead up to match ball egress and entry rates.

***There must be an energy intervention and addition of force to the leverage factors to add speed or torque.

>>> This suggests that a Prime Mover is required in each instance, to intervene and add force and energy into the system. The basics of the Prime Mover modus operadi should be a common theme engineered and adaptive for each OB situation examined. And it should create its force and energy input from the immediate wheel environment so as to appear as an internal structure or apparatus. If it can harvest ambient energy and create a useful force to act as a Prime Mover and still meet the definition of true mechanical Perpetual Motion Principle then that could suggest diurnal temp or pressure changes, or a harvested theromdynamic effect i.e. aerodynamic principles (Bernoulli) to create a temporary cold sink (relative to the wheel internal environment without its effect). And this is leveraged to provide speed or torque.

>>> What other mechanical workaround theories might be invoked in the absence of the standalone and common Prime Mover structure or apparatus as above, as an alternative approach to sustained imbalance of most wheels ?

**** The concept of cancelling (mitigating) torques by offsetting directional torque against another of an opposite direction to greatly null them (mathematical approach).

***** then have a Prime Mover of another sort entirely. Whose job is to take the internal movement of lws etc and use that previously wasted energy of their movement into position and convert into forward momentum of the wheel in its entirety. A high efficiency factor is sort to minimize energy otherwise wasted to the void. One iteration might be an 'escape ramp' analogy whereby the roller-lws deploy against the ramp forcing the wheel to gain forward momentum. IOW's the energy of lw transition to another position is not wasted but creates additional forward torque perceived as a system energy gain (the mathematical deduction).

You've assumed some extra force is needed for KE > GPE, however this extra force would thus be performing extra work over either the same or else extra displacement.. IOW, really, invoking an additional input of energy, from somewhere..

My whole point here is that the squaring nature of energy with accumulating velocity could be exploited - via any effective N3 / N1 exception - to gain KE from the same given F*d or GPE.. so, no extra force or displacement required; what's needed, then, is a way to 'spoof' lower-than-actual velocities for the input F*d workload:

- If the input displacement always begins from effective 'stationary' (ie. relative to the wheel itself), then the energy cost of accelerating 1 kg by 1 m/s, say, is always half a Joule.

So just for simple example, 10 such accelerations in succession would only cost 5 J, while resulting in a 50 J rise in KE - with no 'extra' force or displacement over that baseline 'pseudo-static' value.

I'm currently getting 1 day off a fortnight, and besides, my desktop died, and no time for repairs, so FA chance o getting back into this for now.. it's still constantly on my mind tho.. if i had the tools & time i'd still be at it..

[MrVibrating]

..in a nutshell, the input workload has to reside in the wheel's FoR (not the ground's)..

..despite the fact that the momentum source (gravity & time) is firmly bound to the ground FoR.

Shuttling momentum across that FoR / velocity boundary is thus the core mechanical problem, and only possible solution IMHO.

[WaltzCee]

What does FoR mean?

[Tarsier79]

It is the opposite of AgainsT.... JK: Frame of Reference.

[MrVibrating]

Yes, sorry - energy squares with velocity relative to an inertia, of some description.

This reference inertia, in the case of Bessler's wheels, was the wheel body itself, and its rotation. Its accelerating rotation, no less.

Despite the wheel's 'external' speed relative to the ground / earth / gravity's vector - up to around 40 RPM for the Weissenstein wheel and ~56 RPM for the Gera wheel, IIRC - each internal displacement that added more momentum to the wheel was only paying the PE equivalent of a standing-start acceleration.

So for example, if a 1 kg lump is stationary relative to the ground, then it only costs half a Joule to accelerate it by 1 m/s..

..but if it's already moving at say 1 m/s, then that same rise in momentum of 1 kg-m/s now costs 1.5 J..

..and if it were at say 10 m/s, then an eleventh would cost a further 10.5 J more input energy / work done.

Momentum gets more energy-expensive - and valuable - the more of it you accumulate, bashically.. (provided you're accumulating the 'velocity' rather than 'inertia' component, that is - the latter just sums, while the former squares).

So for instance the Toys page depicts 5 successive accelerations / gains in momentum about an axis; each of the 5 cycles pays the same energy to perform the same amount of work, raising the same amount of system angular momentum. Each cycle dissipates 75% of its input energy in collisions, but the value of the 25% useful work done each cycle is compounding in the external (ground) reference frame, thus attaining mechanical unity at four cycles and 125% after five. (Then 150% if there were a sixth, 175% at the seventh, and so on).

This is the only way to square the circle - the only way out of "1+1=3" - making the universe / laws of physics assign the 'extra' energy, so that we don't have to, type stuff.


Gaming the system, instead of trying to fight it.

[Gill Simo]

I rarely visit these days...ill health prevents mostly.
But that said I wouldn't be inclined regardless....& this 'ere thread is a perfect example as to why.
Soon be three years in the making & what an excess of endless & pointless drivel.
There is but one post that offers anything at all constructive to the cause...just ten or so replies in, from C/C to Mr V...

"You are just fooling yourself, not anyone else.
You become mesmerised by your walls of text and ignore the obvious.
Nothing happening here!"

That statement serves you all...it could be added to just about each & every thread that now sits in the archives.....just walls of text, nothing ever happening here...because you collectively fool yourselves & nobody else.

I must ask...is there seriously still not one amongst you all who can muster a glimmer of wisdom? Nobody who can grasp that every damn thing you know (& Lord above, don't you all just know so bloody much) is of zero use to you in this particular pursuit...because, as you all very well know, this particular pursuit is utterly impossible according to everything you know.

You're akin to a bunch of great car mechanics attempting ground-breaking brain surgery under some odd illusion that both are really quite similar in principle!

I can only assume that ego or the like is what prevents you all from applying basic common-sense to the matter at hand?

Enough basic, common-sense to see that the very notion that one could ever possibly make something possible by applying all impossibility to it ( the sum of your knowledge to date) is obscene in its stupidity.

Please!....stop now...year upon year upon year of proving to yourselves, over & over, that yes indeed, your knowledge is faultlessly correct...it's simply impossible...& yet refusing to believe it?

Sad buggers springs to mind people, sad to say.

What we seek is not in our knowledge database...like dah!...so obviously no marvel of our engineering is gonna suffice, is it now?
It's Enlightenment that's required here, not engineering.

Harsh but nonetheless true...if you're unable to grasp, fully appreciate & accept this most simple of wisdoms then you're simply out of your depth mentally & for all your doubtless good will & effort, of no use whatsoever to the cause.

If our current view (& let's not forget that it's nothing more than that) is correct then PM IS IMPOSSIBLE.
If you seek its possibility then you MUST, by all good logic, seek to change the current view.

Unlikely before I'm gone me thnks but perhaps someone can do me the favour of emailing me should anyone ever dare for just once to attempt such a thing here...something worth ever coming here for..just for once?

Gill

[Tarsier79]

I won't get that 3 minutes back.

[WaltzCee]

No you will not!!

I'm currently getting 1 day off a fortnight, and besides, my desktop died, and no time
for repairs, so FA chance o getting back into this for now.. it's still constantly on my
mind tho.. if i had the tools & time i'd still be at it..

Sorry to hear about your misfortune.

At times it's good to give something a rest. New ideas often times come to you.

Best of luck.