My latest wheel thoughts

[WaltzCee]

But nobody is interested in learning any physics so you have to communicate at a nuts and bolts level that people can understand.

Physics tells us this is impossible. Physicists say,and I quote,
"Stupid cranks!!" What can we do? We're stuck between an
energy deficit and a desperate need for a symmetry break
that refuses to appear obvious.

The reason that's the case is because the very ones that
call us names and make faces behind our backs also
manage the 'rules' we're trying to break.

Bastards.

[WaltzCee]

Hello gang - I'm about to embark on a month-long journey to Australia where my wife is from so that she can see family.

Yea, I reckon Silent is is Brisbane by now. He's a nice guy, and did not deserve the treatment he received.

I don't know what Silent did to piss his old lady off but I'm
sure it didn't merit getting drug half way around the world
to be subjected to in-laws.

Poor fellow.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi WaltzCee,
the problem is that they do it as they have learned it.
So I agree we are stupid cranks in their eyes.

They can handle a direct impact, an indirect not.
It is a useless fight, because it is not in their teacher book.

When you have a model, then we can try to put it in formulas.
Best is then to have a person like ME around, which will have the role of Gravesande.

But I assume also for him it is difficult to set up the equation of motion, because it is new.

The observer of the running wheel can then choose which Integral, Lagrange, Euler or Runge-Kutta is the best way to describe it.

The motion is based on a total of multi oscillation of the weights.
All are swinging on and go around at the same time and do their work.

So telling us we are on a nuts level disqualifies themself.

If the solution was easy to find, we had not to search for so long.

[silent]

.

[WaltzCee]

But I assume also for him it is difficult to set up the equation of motion, because it is new.

I don't think it's going to be new. Consider the depth of
understanding physicists have about mass and motion.
I think they've come to some wrong conclusions by
reason of their philosophical bias.

I'm so certain the answer is going to be found in an
equation where some of the forces approximate
zero I'd bet Raj's life.

[WaltzCee]

And for what's it worth, my in-laws are good people and we get on well. I sent a dozen roses over in advance and that fixes so much stuff it isn't even funny.

I'm sure they're great people. Stay away from the
billy bogs.

[ME]

@Marchello.
What next?
My answer could be deduced from my KE & PE and Speed
Doubler threads.
Raj

I'm glad we agree.

[Sam Peppiatt]

ME,,

Yes you are right, both weights weight the same. The radius of B never changes. It's radius is fixed. Only A's radius changes. When A is down it's radius gets shorter, this effectively makes B heavier. When A is up it's radius has to get longer. Which makes B look lighter.

In other words A always has to lift up, whether it is at 1:00 or 7:00. to keep the wheel top heavy, ( OOB), as it rotates.

For what ever it's worth, Sam

[agor95]

silent - have a good one

You can have the sun for the rest of us, here in the dark cold winter months.

I appreciate the members points that have been posted since my last entry.

I really can not disagree with your positions on this matter.

And Yet there is a chance. A small chance that something is possible. Lurking in the dark behind the can't work words :-)

An arm with two masses balanced and horizontal that can rotate.
You have to start somewhere and that is a good start.

Lets have some spring potential [PE] that pushes the slider down the arm.

So the mass is moving before the rotation rate kicks in to play.

Using a convensional frame of reference

The sliders momentum is horizontal and straight down due to gravity.

The arm rotates clockwise due to the imbalance.

Now lets have two springs on either side of the slider mass and a stop at the end of the arm.

The sliders mass will have a resting weight and also extra weight resulting on the need to adjust it's direction as it goes down and around.

There is a knife edge play of forces that is required to maximize[us spelling] the outer spring compression.

Now ratchet lock that compression.

With that spring potential [PE] ready; allow the arm to rotate until the slider is moving up the other side and release.

The slider hopefully gets to its original balanced position. Also it compresses the initiator inner spring. Ratchet Lock again

When the slider is back into it's horizontal position the slider can be released.

Note. This description needs to be simulated. Only when it produces a positive energy increase should a build be considered.

Also the math's has to be done for the simulator and to prove the principle to the members.

P.S. The path down is not the same as the path up. This is the symmetry break we need.
The clue is in MT124 - one curve down and one curve up.

Regards

[ovyyus]

I think they've come to some wrong conclusions by reason of their philosophical bias.

How do you know they're wrong?

[WaltzCee]

How do you know they're wrong?

I can feel it in my bones, like when a noreaster is blowing in.

However I said 'I think', not that I know. I have philosophical
bias also.

[ovyyus]

Perhaps it's easier to feel things than it is to know things?

[WaltzCee]

Perhaps it's easier to feel things than it is to know things?

It's easier not to confuse fact with opinion. For example
you're of the belief a gravity powered & driven wheel is
impossible. I believe (think, feel, . . .) the jury's still out.

I can admit I don't know. Wanting to know drives me.

[Furcurequs]

Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.

This may sound offensive to some, but I believe that those who would dismiss known physics while looking for Bessler "clues" rather than trying to fully understand known physics and look for clues in the physics books are the ones most handicapped in this endeavor.

Could one armed solely with knowledge of Bessler information stumble into a direction that could lead to a potential solution when doing his or her own experimentation and observation? Possibly. The ideas I myself am pursuing were inspired by some simple experimentation and direct observation, but with me I'm also armed with knowledge of basic physics and engineering principles which gives me, I believe, much more to work with and to draw from than some others may have.

To put it another way, my physics and engineering knowledge plays such a big part in what I'm now trying to do that I don't know if I would be pursuing these avenues had I not had that prior knowledge.

If my devices were to ultimately work, then, that would mean I would have new mechanical designs requiring new sorts of design equations (to maximize device output) but which would be derived from already accepted basic physics equations. In other words, it may just be a design problem.

Of course, a working device that extracted energy directly from the gravitational field of the earth - and which was also shown to be workable based upon already known physics equations and principles - would certainly force modern day physicists to have to re-think a few things, wouldn't it? Wish me luck, then! ...haha

...and good luck to you folks, too.

Oh, and so back the original quote. Those who tend or "manage" the laws or "rules" of physics as formulated under conditions they are familiar with may not understand correctly how to interpret them or how they could apply under conditions they've not yet thought about.

Disclaimer: My ideas, though quite specific, are still in the realm of unconfirmed (or hopefully just yet to be confirmed) hypothesis.

[WaltzCee]

look for clues in the physics books

Bessler was a bit handicapped.

As you very well know the physics books say this is
impossible.

You shouldn't deprive yourself of the knowledge
available in a lexicon or maybe a Strong's.