Sunday, 29 September 2019

Fabricate Not Simulate....Again.

I know I’ve posted on this subject before but I've always maintained that the only way to solve the problem of Bessler’s wheel is to try to build it and not to try and do it with computer simulations alone. If I was a betting man I would wager that Bessler’s wheel will not be discovered without a build, a working model.  I don’t just mean that a working model is essential in proving your solution works, no what I mean is, all those who design through simulations alone will not succeed in finding the solution.  The reason why is clear to me and has been amply proven (to myself) several times over.

For instance I believe I have had the solution to Bessler’s  wheel for several months but knowing how it was done and discovering how to make it work, in the flesh so to speak, is another matter altogether.  You see I had the design down pat and I manufactured the pieces and put them together and for reasons I didn’t understand at first, one part of the mechanism I made simply would not move according to the way I wanted it to do.  The action was wrong. It was close but not close enough.  I made numerous alterations to try to correct its action but I could not get it right.  I searched through Bessler’s works and eventually I found the answer in the ‘Toys’ page.  The answer was in front of me for years and years, but I had thought it was a clue to another part of the mechanism.  The part I thought it applied to had already been shown with the correct information in another place. So this particular part shown in the ‘Toys’ page revealed the correct alteration to the mechanism and as soon as I made the changes it worked in accordance with my design intentions.

The point I’m making is that I would probably never have thought of the adjustment if I hadn’t interpreted it correctly in the end, thanks to the particular feature on the ‘Toys’ page.  But if I had simulated it without a prior build I might have assumed that my design was right and very likely it would have been rejected. Or perhaps the simulation would have approved the design, wrongly, but then a working model would have failed. So even though I might simulate my design and it either proved I was right, or proved I was wrong, I would not have discovered that the mechanism was wrong until I tried to build a proof of principle machine. Through building your design you learn and discover new designs, new concepts, think through to new angles and even that old favourite, think outside the box.

Discovering that the mechanism would not act correctly did not put me off because I knew that the basic concept was right and that some kind of alteration or addition was needed to make everything work together.  I tried several variations to bring the mechanism under my control but I didn’t think of the one thing which would have worked.  Bessler seems to have provided hints for every obstacle encountered along the way, but obviously it will only help those who build.

NB - I haven't finished building the  wheel yet,

JC

9 comments:

  1. By way of exception: - I am happy, Sir John, that you have recognized NB is the right direction. I used the time of separation from this forum well because I moved forward. My wheel is not working yet. Geometry says and there is nothing to add. Faith is born of listening.

    I don't read the comments because they distract me from the essence of things.

    With respect.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are half right, John.
    Yes, you are right about that current physics simulators are tested against the perpetual motion because that's an important test to see if the simulator works in accordance with the current laws of physics.
    But you are missing one important point, John.
    We don't have to use an off-the-shelf simulator; we can program a custom simulator for our own theory.
    It is not very hard to program a simulator nowadays.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand what you’re saying yellow, and I’m familiar with programmable simulators although I don’t use them. My point was that simulations are too restrictive and you can miss potential variables by not building. You can use simulations, of course, but in the end they can misread or not allow variations in a mechanical action that become self evident when you actually build the parts.

      JC


      Delete
  3. RAF BRAVO John for your comments on simulations !! Like thought "experiments", simulations lack finesse. On the square shape, I notice some A frames become squares when arms are 90 degrees. Is the aspect ratio (width to height) important in pantograph building?

    ReplyDelete
  4. RAF In M.T 138 C and D we see two aspect ratios. In M T 143 we see an aspect ratio of 4:3 . Could the vertical post represent a crossbar? Pantograph design would be important for those of us single crossbar builders in transferring torque from bar to rimstops as in M T 18.

    ReplyDelete
  5. One of the major problems with simulations is that today's so called "physics formulas" are quite different from what people had in the time of Bessler. One of them is the force that's produced when a body falls which in today's formulas is 1/2 of something (I don't want to bother with details here). In the past it was a square root of something which is quite different. If you do a simple test you will find that today's formula will tell you that you have to produce an immense force and you'll wonder why it doesn't happen. Of course the excuse is "air friction" (by a great magnitude...)

    This means today's simulators will give you much optimistic results than you will have in practice and if one uses simulators, they will be more disappointed and poorer, because they would think something works, while it doesn't.

    Just look up the formula for a falling body that falls from height H and weights M and see the force it produces.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thomas, I looked up the formula as you suggest and it is quite simply mgh. That's mass times gravity on earth which is 9.8 times height in meters. There is no "1/2" of anything as you erroneously claim, nor is it anywhere near so complicated and full of mind boggling details as you would have us believe. I would advise you that, the next time you wish to supplant established mathematical formulas with pseudoscientific nonsense, you actually include all the exact details of the formula(s) you are challenging.

      Delete
    2. It's not that formula, but the formula for a body in motion, or the so called "kinetic energy." The formula in the past was different by a substantial amount.

      Delete
  6. The mechanism itself is shown on the upper right hand corner of this page, Bessler hid it in plain sight .
    - Eight year old earthworm -

    ReplyDelete

The Legend of Bessler’s Wheel and the Orffyreus Code

I’m posting the Legend of Bessler’s wheel again because I’m going to be working hard on finishing my reconstruction of Bessler’s wheel.  It...