Bessler had it so who knows, maybe Jim too. But the non-conservation of RKE to angular momentum is already a half-finished PMM right on our doorstep. It's virtually a trip hazard. Elephants leave distinctive tracks in the custard bowl and there's definitely something hiding in the fridge. We've collectively eliminated the impossible... here's what's left.Fletcher wrote:So far jim_mich is the only one claiming to have an actual mechanical arrangement that does this. No public physical proof as yet.
Personally, I could never find one fit for purpose (maybe lack of imagination), but I enjoy following others as they plumb the depths looking for one. Maybe they/you will succeed Mr V.
More power to your elbow.
Poss. Symmetry Break?
Moderator: scott
-
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
Re: re: Poss. Symmetry Break?
re: Poss. Symmetry Break?
Well, we agreed to disagree, or was that somewhere else.MrVibrating wrote:Don't have the quotes onhand but seem to remember they were all in agreement about it spinning up to a steady clip within a few rotations.
We also have testimony that the orignal one-way wheel gave a significant kick upwards on one of its support posts (as if in the precession plane), possibly indicating a radial inertia and thus a changing MoI.
A constant frequency at a constant pace doesn't necessarily mean a flat velocity or a flat Center of Mass during each pace, see video Gait-analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MON0b3z_qCs
What I mean is a steady 26 RPM could actually be a range of 25 to 27 between each weight-"bang", probably causing the speed-up; happening within a time frame of 0.0542 seconds (nobody would notice). Calc: 0.0542*8*60 = 26 RPM.
Constant for a full rotation, perhaps not for 1/8th of it.
I may even be more dramatic. Maybe between 20 and 30 RPM, showing a stepping acceleration which will diminish under load and then settles for a constant 20 RPM. But then, how much can such range be before it shows.
I think that kick upwards indicates that most mass is already at the descending side of the wheel and uses the axle and support-post as the only or best leverage it has.
----
Perhaps one can never fully understand the FoR of cats.
They come and sit on your lap and while doing nothing special they stare at you and you know you have to pet them. Then they start to purr and lay down on your legs which get warm in no-time. Totally quantum.
Perhaps it's not the action, but the in-action which gives rise the a better action.
When a weight slows down, it will have a speed relative to some preceding weight. When some interaction between these two could somehow result in a speed-up, then it's possible things start to gain.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:43 pm
re: Poss. Symmetry Break?
Hi Mr V ,
One last thing I would like to bring to your attention about the pendulum jerk , it all happens when the pendulum is at it's highest potential , even if all of the jerk has gone into strain in the system , gravity will restart the pendulum on it's next cycle , both sides of the pivot . For max effect , the wave should be symetrical , only then will the pendulum not match the wheel " oscalations " .
You do not like the idea of the pendulum as it is outside of the wheel , but there are different way's of achiving the same thing , one whould be a cross coupling at a oblique angle , same as a constant velocity joint , but using a cross coupling , when turned , this coupling will retard and advance 4 times / rotaion .
Will follow this closely .
Daan .
One last thing I would like to bring to your attention about the pendulum jerk , it all happens when the pendulum is at it's highest potential , even if all of the jerk has gone into strain in the system , gravity will restart the pendulum on it's next cycle , both sides of the pivot . For max effect , the wave should be symetrical , only then will the pendulum not match the wheel " oscalations " .
You do not like the idea of the pendulum as it is outside of the wheel , but there are different way's of achiving the same thing , one whould be a cross coupling at a oblique angle , same as a constant velocity joint , but using a cross coupling , when turned , this coupling will retard and advance 4 times / rotaion .
Will follow this closely .
Daan .
-
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
Bit busy now but quick thought - Bessler tells us that his weights alternate between inner and outer positions, entirely consistent with OB schemes, but in the next breath warns us against the futility of OB.
These internal motions he describes may be incidental, or intergal to the exploit.
But what we do now know, is that to alternate between inner and outer positions, the masses must transition through this band of minimal inertia and maximal energy... IOW that there is an energy pulse to the system mid-way thru their travel...
Soo... we're looking for some event that adds energy to the system, and which somehow arises when weights alternate between inner and outer positions... and here is one, so.... could be a coincidence, but Occam might suggest we're getting warmer..
These internal motions he describes may be incidental, or intergal to the exploit.
But what we do now know, is that to alternate between inner and outer positions, the masses must transition through this band of minimal inertia and maximal energy... IOW that there is an energy pulse to the system mid-way thru their travel...
Soo... we're looking for some event that adds energy to the system, and which somehow arises when weights alternate between inner and outer positions... and here is one, so.... could be a coincidence, but Occam might suggest we're getting warmer..
Re: re: Poss. Symmetry Break?
i missed this part of the conversation. Jim has an arrangement to do what exactly?MrVibrating wrote:Bessler had it so who knows, maybe Jim too. But the non-conservation of RKE to angular momentum is already a half-finished PMM right on our doorstep. It's virtually a trip hazard. Elephants leave distinctive tracks in the custard bowl and there's definitely something hiding in the fridge. We've collectively eliminated the impossible... here's what's left.Fletcher wrote:So far jim_mich is the only one claiming to have an actual mechanical arrangement that does this. No public physical proof as yet.
Personally, I could never find one fit for purpose (maybe lack of imagination), but I enjoy following others as they plumb the depths looking for one. Maybe they/you will succeed Mr V.
More power to your elbow.
Once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.
As I've written many times that my postings go "whoosh" right over your heads.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 480#142480
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 480#142480
re: Poss. Symmetry Break?
Now I see what your saying and I agree with you to a point. I dont think your completely right or completely wrong.
Once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.
re: Poss. Symmetry Break?
@jim
What does the simulator say about your design?
What does the simulator say about your design?
Once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am
Are you sure that's not the sound of all those carefree crows flying over your head? ...knowing they have nothing to fear from you?jim_mich wrote:As I've written many times that my postings go "whoosh" right over your heads.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 480#142480
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
I prefer working alone.
-
- Addict
- Posts: 2879
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:19 am
- Location: W3
Jim talks of "transfering" momentum / motion between masses, and Fletcher was pushing at the same concept, but in linear systems this is where we come up against mass constancy, which prevents us trading the mass of a given linear momentum for velocity and thus energy gain.
So as far as i can see the concept is only practical in terms of rotation, replacing mass with MoI.
In rotating systems, I=MR^2, so if radius is halved, inertia drops by a factor of four, hence velocity (or torque if velocity is held constant), and thus kinetic energy, must also rise by a factor of four.
If the MoI modulation is accomplished by equal opposite radial translations (inner vs outer masses swapping places), then net radius of the masses can only vary by a factor of two, giving us the max. four-fold energy gain Bessler alludes to.
Something else that stands out here is that a single mass sliding radially offers a larger margin of radial travel and thus MoI variation, or, if it only slid half as far, could replicate the same effect as two equal opposite masses... Which begs the question, why use two opposing masses instead of just one?
Weights acting in pairs somehow offers an extra degree of flexibility or some other benefit. For a start, a single weight would have to pass through the axle to achieve the same effect, so perhaps that hints at other constraints, too - the trick needed an internal axle, and the weights couldn't pass through it..
Another possibility is that when Bessler says the weights come in pairs, and that one takes up an outer position as the other takes up an inner position, perhaps he means pairs swap positions, ie. an outer pair vs an inner pair.. per MT 41 - which raises the similar question - what's the benefit of doubling / mirroring the mechanism horizontally? The jacks there seem to be hinting at cancelling linear forces...
This apparent need to use two or even four masses to effect an MoI variation that could be achieved by moving a single larger mass (and even 'bettered' in terms of increasing the potential inertial variation), must relate to the trick employed to rectify the gains, allowing the KE rises to accumulate...
I just love the maths of this tho... P=MV, KE=1/2MV^2... so if P=100 kg/ms and M and V are both 10, KE = 500 J. But if the inertia is halved down to 5 kg, velocity must rise to 20 m/s to conserve P, and energy doubles to 1 kJ... the energy gained from the rise in velocity is not offset by the reduction in mass/ inertia, so although we have half the effective mass in flight, at double the speed it has twice the energy. Beautiful isn't it? MoI is an open invitation.. and nature already takes care of the rest. Nature is the "PMM" here, not the machine! It is nature that creates the energy.. the machine is merely a dumb assistant.
So anyhoos, what can axially and/or radially paired masses do, that single ones can't? Something to do with cyclicability, asymmetry, and perhaps force cancellation...
So as far as i can see the concept is only practical in terms of rotation, replacing mass with MoI.
In rotating systems, I=MR^2, so if radius is halved, inertia drops by a factor of four, hence velocity (or torque if velocity is held constant), and thus kinetic energy, must also rise by a factor of four.
If the MoI modulation is accomplished by equal opposite radial translations (inner vs outer masses swapping places), then net radius of the masses can only vary by a factor of two, giving us the max. four-fold energy gain Bessler alludes to.
Something else that stands out here is that a single mass sliding radially offers a larger margin of radial travel and thus MoI variation, or, if it only slid half as far, could replicate the same effect as two equal opposite masses... Which begs the question, why use two opposing masses instead of just one?
Weights acting in pairs somehow offers an extra degree of flexibility or some other benefit. For a start, a single weight would have to pass through the axle to achieve the same effect, so perhaps that hints at other constraints, too - the trick needed an internal axle, and the weights couldn't pass through it..
Another possibility is that when Bessler says the weights come in pairs, and that one takes up an outer position as the other takes up an inner position, perhaps he means pairs swap positions, ie. an outer pair vs an inner pair.. per MT 41 - which raises the similar question - what's the benefit of doubling / mirroring the mechanism horizontally? The jacks there seem to be hinting at cancelling linear forces...
This apparent need to use two or even four masses to effect an MoI variation that could be achieved by moving a single larger mass (and even 'bettered' in terms of increasing the potential inertial variation), must relate to the trick employed to rectify the gains, allowing the KE rises to accumulate...
I just love the maths of this tho... P=MV, KE=1/2MV^2... so if P=100 kg/ms and M and V are both 10, KE = 500 J. But if the inertia is halved down to 5 kg, velocity must rise to 20 m/s to conserve P, and energy doubles to 1 kJ... the energy gained from the rise in velocity is not offset by the reduction in mass/ inertia, so although we have half the effective mass in flight, at double the speed it has twice the energy. Beautiful isn't it? MoI is an open invitation.. and nature already takes care of the rest. Nature is the "PMM" here, not the machine! It is nature that creates the energy.. the machine is merely a dumb assistant.
So anyhoos, what can axially and/or radially paired masses do, that single ones can't? Something to do with cyclicability, asymmetry, and perhaps force cancellation...
To make the wheel not bounce around too much.Which begs the question, why use two opposing masses instead of just one?
If that's what it takes, then we could make the wheel float inside a ring of roller-skate wheels. Or we make a big axle having holes: weight high-ways.or a start, a single weight would have to pass through the axle to achieve the same effect, so perhaps that hints at other constraints, too - the trick needed an internal axle, and the weights couldn't pass through it..
Forced cancellation sounds good to me. When it's possible to make a wheel rotate no matter how such force is applied (perhaps mutual cancellation), then we could tweak that situations in times and positions where things benefit the most.So anyhoos, what can axially and/or radially paired masses do, that single ones can't? Something to do with cyclicability, asymmetry, and perhaps force cancellation...
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
re: Poss. Symmetry Break?
Mr. Vibrating touches on the weights exchanging position,one nearer the axle and one further.If these weights were exchanging positions at 12 and 6 instead of 3 and 9,the wheel would not be "classically" OB,but would be constantly top-heavy,which would still provide rotation.
Trying to turn the spinning in my brain into something useful before moving on to the next life.
- eccentrically1
- Addict
- Posts: 3166
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm
re: Poss. Symmetry Break?
No offense intended, but doesn't the math for angular momentum, moment of inertia, and rotational kinetic energy contain terms for radius?I just love the maths of this tho... P=MV, KE=1/2MV^2... so if P=100 kg/ms and M and V are both 10, KE = 500 J. But if the inertia is halved down to 5 kg, velocity must rise to 20 m/s to conserve P, and energy doubles to 1 kJ... the energy gained from the rise in velocity is not offset by the reduction in mass/ inertia, so although we have half the effective mass in flight, at double the speed it has twice the energy.
L = mrv
I = mrr
𝑲𝑬rot = 1/2 mrrvv
So mass and velocity are 10 initially and if the radius begins at 1, and is reduced to .5,
L = 10 x .5 x 20 = 100 (constant mass, new radius, velocity doubles to conserve momentum)
I = 10 x .5 x .5 = 2.5 (new moment of inertia, mass is easier to accelerate at new radius)
𝑲𝑬rot = 1/2 x 10 x .5 x .5 x 400 = 400 x 1.25 = 500 (KE conserved at new moment)
Unless I misunderstand, which has happened more times than I care to admit.
Re: re: Poss. Symmetry Break?
Obviously the silence is deafening...John doe wrote:@jim
What does the simulator say about your design?
Once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.
I've answered this same question many times. WM2D can't properly handle my wheel. WM2D uses conservation of energy to solve for the motions of moving components. I have to set the parameter so loose that the results are meaningless. And when I tighten up the parameters then WM2D explodes the assembly, breaks the joints, and parts go flying in all direction at unrealistic speeds.
That is why I wrote my own VB program, so as to analyze and understand what was happening. My own custom program showed where and why there was an energy gain. I can now explain my motion-wheel in very few words. It is a sample as dropping a 12 foot log across a 10 foot creek. You know it will work beforehand. But of course the USPTO demands a working model for perpetual motion claims.
I find it greatly insulting when the trolls claim that my VB program must be wrong. I've been writing VB programs that animate the motions of objects for more than 30 years. If you make a mistake writing the code, then it is instantly obvious because you see the animated object move in a wrong way on the screen
I've used trig for even longer, to program CNC mills and lathes. Everyone makes math mistakes from time to time. But such mistakes do not mean that you are ignorant of math or engineering. It simply means that you did not take the time and effort to double check your numbers. And in that one instance where I made a math error here on the forum, I posted a disclaimer saying that it was a quick calculation and had not been double checked. But the trolls keep throwing this in my face many years later. My point in that one instance was to show an alternate method of solving for rotational speed, based upon radius of gyration. But that part of my post also went whoosh over everyone's head.
That is why I wrote my own VB program, so as to analyze and understand what was happening. My own custom program showed where and why there was an energy gain. I can now explain my motion-wheel in very few words. It is a sample as dropping a 12 foot log across a 10 foot creek. You know it will work beforehand. But of course the USPTO demands a working model for perpetual motion claims.
I find it greatly insulting when the trolls claim that my VB program must be wrong. I've been writing VB programs that animate the motions of objects for more than 30 years. If you make a mistake writing the code, then it is instantly obvious because you see the animated object move in a wrong way on the screen
I've used trig for even longer, to program CNC mills and lathes. Everyone makes math mistakes from time to time. But such mistakes do not mean that you are ignorant of math or engineering. It simply means that you did not take the time and effort to double check your numbers. And in that one instance where I made a math error here on the forum, I posted a disclaimer saying that it was a quick calculation and had not been double checked. But the trolls keep throwing this in my face many years later. My point in that one instance was to show an alternate method of solving for rotational speed, based upon radius of gyration. But that part of my post also went whoosh over everyone's head.