tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post7370170455181134413..comments2020-07-08T20:05:50.763+01:00Comments on Bessler's Wheel and the Orffyreus Code: After 50 Years, I Still Believe in Johann Bessler - Why?John Collinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13274781515636883957noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-46700985153587863382019-02-22T09:29:02.696+00:002019-02-22T09:29:02.696+00:00argument on whether apple jews or apple seder is t...argument on whether apple jews or apple seder is the more delicious(ly horrible) pun. Or maybe something has been nagging you for weeks, and you wonder if it's actually, well, a Jew. <a href="https://cheaptyresandwheels.com.au/" rel="nofollow">Cheap Tyres & Wheels</a><br />jhonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08258690520992269231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-12448825626302025812019-02-07T10:21:24.467+00:002019-02-07T10:21:24.467+00:00I do not believe in coincidences anymore, there ar...I do not believe in coincidences anymore, there are too many different and strange signs of all sorts, which currently show to one direction only.<br /><br />No, we have not ever talked about my initials. There is very long and strange story behind it, but ... in short explanation, it is my surename, without vowels. Oddly enough, it can also be found in the Grundlicher Bericht. <br /><br />PLMKRNAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-9577527066628160442019-02-06T18:45:40.418+00:002019-02-06T18:45:40.418+00:00Yes and as some once pointed out to me, I was born...Yes and as some once pointed out to me, I was born in 1945, 1 + 9 = 10, plus 4 = 14, which is 1 + 4 = 5. So 5,5, or 55. On the 5th. Happy coincidence.<br /><br />BTW I don’t know if I asked you before but what do the letters you sign with mean?<br />JCJohn Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13274781515636883957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-27638074714572052242019-02-06T08:13:23.254+00:002019-02-06T08:13:23.254+00:00It's that instant change, modelled in a Finite...It's that instant change, modelled in a Finite Elements program, that troubles me a bit. I don't use WM2D, so don't know how much trust it deserves. But I have had definite errors occur in models with instant "step-changes" using another Finite Elements program, i.e. Universal Mechanism, the program I use for 3D modelling (only because I can't find a decent 3D Finite Differences program).<br /><br />In the real world, mechanical processes always take some finite time to complete, and so I'd prefer to see that modelled more realistically.<br /><br />The basic point still holds of course — we are trying to find a situation where Nature is forced to abandon conservation of energy in order to preserve conservation of momentum. As my old university physics textbook (Halliday and Resnick) says: "The law of the conservation of linear momentum holds true even in atomic and nuclear physics, although Newtonian mechanics does not. Hence, this conservation law must be more fundamental than Newtonian principles..."arktos1001https://www.blogger.com/profile/03384693609032640915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-51191148465738724322019-02-06T06:17:38.915+00:002019-02-06T06:17:38.915+00:00Thanks Zhyyra.Thanks Zhyyra.John Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13274781515636883957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-20874524445973264262019-02-06T05:59:02.533+00:002019-02-06T05:59:02.533+00:00Number 5 makes big impact "in it" :)
I ...Number 5 makes big impact "in it" :)<br /><br />I admire your discoveries on number 5 in Bessler publications.<br />Strangely this nr 5 is also your birthday!?<br /><br />PLMKRN<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-9845905169383518952019-02-06T01:48:57.951+00:002019-02-06T01:48:57.951+00:00@arktos1001 - applying torque against Earth is alr...@arktos1001 - applying torque against Earth is already confirmed as breaking the gain conditions: <br /><br />https://i.ibb.co/NL83kc7/Momentum-Dive.gif<br /><br />..compared to the no-stator case:<br /><br />https://i.ibb.co/fYfbCjH/Single-Mech-GPE-21-No-Rad-Trans-v2.gif<br /><br />..so yes, the gain depends upon all torques and counter-torques being contained within the system.<br /><br />Thus the motor torque and counter-torque presumably cancel, leaving the 'reactionless' inertial torque from the resulting MoI drop.<br /><br />3 torques battling it out, 2 of equal sign, 1 opposed, seems to be what's happening..<br /><br />The halving of MoI when the motors activate seems a mathematical and experimental certainty. We don't know exactly how WM2D is calculating MoI or rotKE, but its calcs perfectly match those from the standard classical equations used in the meters.<br /><br />So all indications are that a physical build would respond in the same way. So long as the masses are distributed as depicted, torquing the outer rotors causes the same change in orbital MoI as physically retracting the masses does.. only, instantly! <br /><br />The resulting "zero time acceleration" remains as extraordinary as the KE gain..<br /><br />You'd think - just intuitively - such an outcome MUST be non-physical? Yet the alternative is a transient failure in CoM - net momentum would have to dip, then come back up somehow.. so if CoM operates at lightspeed, and the MoI changes instantly, then the instant change in velocity must be real, no?<br /><br />A physical test of this particular detail seems utterly compelling, doesn't it? If the phenomenon actually presents then WOW! Vibratorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18175744698320817417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-17216688615763216622019-02-05T18:43:10.997+00:002019-02-05T18:43:10.997+00:00Happy birthday John. May this year contain huge su...Happy birthday John. May this year contain huge success for you.<br /><br />ZhyyraAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-56990511551173118732019-02-05T15:44:39.164+00:002019-02-05T15:44:39.164+00:00Thank you Sam!
JCThank you Sam!<br /><br />JCJohn Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13274781515636883957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-36955325526404524082019-02-05T14:50:39.836+00:002019-02-05T14:50:39.836+00:00I agree, happy birthday John Collins!! Sam peppiat...I agree, happy birthday John Collins!! Sam peppiattAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-40094781770724780892019-02-05T14:48:54.461+00:002019-02-05T14:48:54.461+00:00All of you try to resolve it in your mind; unfortu...All of you try to resolve it in your mind; unfortunately, it can't be figured out by natural smartness! <br /><br />Buy a hack saw, a box of files; make some thing that will work.<br />Sam PeppiattAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-2856080361294564792019-02-05T13:43:57.815+00:002019-02-05T13:43:57.815+00:00Thank you all. 74 but I don’t feel it yet!
JCThank you all. 74 but I don’t feel it yet!<br /><br />JCJohn Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13274781515636883957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-35343698650513907152019-02-05T13:32:47.966+00:002019-02-05T13:32:47.966+00:00Happy birthday!John may your day be filled with ha...Happy birthday!John may your day be filled with happy Reflections of birthdays past and remember to celebrate this day! Have your cake and eat it too.Stephen Gloriosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12305514113840044382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-11935438058801409062019-02-05T08:19:25.942+00:002019-02-05T08:19:25.942+00:00John, happy birthday and wishing you many years to...John, happy birthday and wishing you many years to come.Herberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04994365250191722488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-74484492073521744712019-02-05T07:42:38.189+00:002019-02-05T07:42:38.189+00:00Happy birthday!
InekeHappy birthday!<br /><br />InekeInekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02660832876219267516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-66721893476445112682019-02-05T06:50:31.449+00:002019-02-05T06:50:31.449+00:00Well thank you PLMKRN! Most kind of you and I’m i...Well thank you PLMKRN! Most kind of you and I’m impressed that you remember!<br /><br />JCJohn Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13274781515636883957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-64332193921634562642019-02-05T05:32:04.355+00:002019-02-05T05:32:04.355+00:00Happy birthday John!
PLMKRNHappy birthday John!<br /><br />PLMKRNAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-46368327659574404612019-02-04T07:00:09.026+00:002019-02-04T07:00:09.026+00:00I built another better and correctly sized silux m...I built another better and correctly sized silux model, and this time tried constant-torque springs winding up against Earth to bring the outer rotors to zero rotation, while simultaneously delivering the energy they would have stored (e.g. in a previous cycle) by reacting against Earth to the central rotor. But again, no net energy gain.<br /><br />As you say, in your model, "Speed doubles automatically in response to that MoI drop..." You are doing "something" to achieve that drop and speed doubling, with your orbital motors. Assuming a real-world prototype is to be built, the problem as I see it is to find some real-world mechanism that will also really do that "something". Not easy!arktos1001https://www.blogger.com/profile/03384693609032640915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-77755203983917615792019-02-04T02:36:13.209+00:002019-02-04T02:36:13.209+00:00ETA: mind the typos above - ie. meant "16 kg...ETA: mind the typos above - ie. meant "16 kg-m²-rad/s @ MoI = 8 / 2 rad/s = 16 J rotKE"<br /><br />Basic point; if the motors / actuators did work, where is it? The only place to look would be the CF profile corresponding to the MoI change... not the motor torque! Yet that, too, is a flat trace... because the 'orbital CF' workload is a zero-sum, as demonstrated in the simplified example above!<br /><br /><br />It's a 'logic trap' for nature..! Vibratorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18175744698320817417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-14909101518810721262019-02-04T02:19:57.204+00:002019-02-04T02:19:57.204+00:00..in reductio ad absurdum, if the motors HAD someh.....in reductio ad absurdum, if the motors HAD somehow slipped some torque past the output explicitly measuring it, and which works fine in all other situations, THEN we'd have to see EVEN MORE final KE than the ½Iw² value of the 16 kg-m²-rad/s of conserved angular momentum - ie. > 16 J final KE. But also, more momentum - or else, the orbital rotors would've had to have been spun back up in the other direction, and further accelerating the orbital axis, but as-is, there's simply nowhere to FIT any more KE into the system than its conserved momentum is worth - so any notion of "hidden motor energy" is, by definition, surplus to requirements.<br /><br />It's self-evidently OU. I see no fundamental reason it couldn't be implemented purely mechanically, but don't want to waste time doing spurious / frivolous things with it.. Besides, we don't know it ain't a doomsday device, yet ('big rip' style).<br /><br />So, might have another go with springs, but far better, surely, to grasp the meaning of the motor torque * angle plots in relation to the MoI & momentum conditions..!? The 'inertial torque' caused by torquing the orbiting rotors and so halving the MoI is equal in sign and magnitude to that of the torque so being applied! That's why it's registering as zero - it's cancelled by an equal opposing torque!! Whole thing dovetails from where i'm sittin'.. it all jives..Vibratorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18175744698320817417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-37698759870267032082019-02-04T02:13:58.457+00:002019-02-04T02:13:58.457+00:00I tried 'em too, but came up against Hooke'...I tried 'em too, but came up against Hooke's law - the changing force as a function of angle.<br /><br />Obviously, once a spring's unwound, it begins winding back up in the other direction, so the counter-torque inverts, destroying the effect..<br /><br />I also tried a ratcheted spring that slips after unloading, again tho, it's hard to tune it to the desired effect.. should maybe have another go..<br /><br />AFAICS, a constant torque shouldn't be necessary - once the axial rotors have stopped, their momentum transferred over to the orbital axis, CoAM should be enough to keep 'em in that configuration, passively sustaining the halved-MoI / doubled rotKE state. The radial translation is only required to actually consolidate / harvest the gain, but it's manifesting the instant the torque's applied.<br /><br />Similarly, the original config in which i first noticed this 'converging MoI' effect doesn't use any application of conventional torque at all - the per-cycle gain in momentum is sourced exclusively from gravity via the 'up' vs 'down' speed difference caused by the MoI variations on the orbiting axes.<br /><br />Another facet of the exploit is seen here:<br /><br />https://image.ibb.co/eZkDFf/cfrig1.gif<br /><br />..demonstrating that the CF profiles are unique to their respective axes - or to put it another way, from the axial rotor's perspective, the inbound vs outbound orbital CF profiles sum to zero; precisely as shown in the basic "200%_No_Grav" sim. The two CF profiles are independent and fully decoupled..<br /><br />..TBH, the initial idea was to actually spin up the axial rotors, the logic being that the associated CF workload was, as seen above, independent of the orbital CF workload and so the two speeds could be arbitrarily different, and so have an arbitrary cost / benefit ratio. The speed difference could be anything whatsoever - all that matters is that the orbiting rotors are either also rotating about their own axes, or else locked in the "one in, one out" config that causes the effective violation of mass constancy. So for instance it might cost 5 J of work against axial CF, to cause a 10 J rise in orbital rotKE, or whatever..<br /><br />..it was only once i started putting it together i realised i could just spin down the orbiting rotors instead, eliminating axial CF entirely. Bonus. <br /><br />As to whether the motors have performed work - or, more to the point, how that torque could've registered as 'zero' in this particular instance - again, consider this:<br /><br /> • The net momentum's conserved (the cycle is statorless, so effectively a closed system of interacting masses, subject to CoAM via N1 & N3; it begins and ends with the same 16 kg-m²-rad/s, held throughout.<br /><br /> • We can plainly see that the MoI DOES halve when the motors kick in - WM's 'Kinetic()' function detects it, as do the calculations built up from the meters, and the two independent derivations of the rotKE are in perfect agreement, based on that instantaneous 'MoI flip'.<br /><br />Speed doubles automatically in response to that MoI drop - not something i've programmed it to do; simply the result of the sim applying CoAM. If MoI suddenly halves, speed must instantly double to conserve their product. Half the MoI at twice the velocity is twice the rotKE.<br /><br />A system can only have 'the right amount' of rotKE for its given MoI and speed. And so the source of the gain is CoAM - it's like an adiabatic compression; squeezing a conserved quantity of momentum into a tighter MoI raises its speed, and thus the 'temperature' of its rotKE.. weak analogy, but you get the drift - the very question of extra work / energy from the motors, beyond the T*a metered - is superfluous; what more or less energy should 16 kg-m² at 2 rad/s have than 16 J? It's the only 'right' amount possible, per ½Iw².<br /><br />Because momentum's conserved, but the MoI halved. So the speed doubled.. and half the MoI at twice the RPM = twice the mojo..Vibratorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18175744698320817417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-39724905505158455462019-02-03T20:08:28.149+00:002019-02-03T20:08:28.149+00:00Yes, for the masses at 4m radius, we agree on thei...Yes, for the masses at 4m radius, we agree on their moments of inertia and energies.<br /><br />I made a silux model of your idea, using pre-wound torsion springs (each 100N-m at 0.15 radians, for a 2m radius case), instead of orbital motors. But the springs just gave up their energy, with no net gain. Total energy did double, but half of it came from the springs. I don't think that is anywhere near enough to rule out your idea, but I do think that if there is a flaw, it will have to do with how those orbital motors are being modelled.arktos1001https://www.blogger.com/profile/03384693609032640915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-1024608046793119742019-02-03T14:11:03.774+00:002019-02-03T14:11:03.774+00:00Because you find something, you are on the right t...Because you find something, you are on the right track. Do not be discouraged, search further. Bessler said that a stubborn man with a lot of free time will find a solution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-71588622224666334752019-02-03T12:41:13.749+00:002019-02-03T12:41:13.749+00:00The initial version - 200% w/o gravity - begins wi...The initial version - 200% w/o gravity - begins with an MoI of 16, which then switches down to 8, check this diagram:<br /><br />https://i.ibb.co/sFBzvbS/Mo-I-Exploit.png<br /><br />So it's initially two ½ kg masses at 4 m radius..<br /><br />Thus at 1 rad/s we begin with ½Iw² = ½ * 16 * 1² = 8 J.<br /><br />We could also take the 'edge speed' of a 4 m radius rotor at 1 rad/s as '4 m / sec' in terms of x+y linear velocity, so again, ½mV² gives 4 J each, 8 in total.<br /><br />Also, do bear in mind that the energy's being calculated in duplicate - independently by me, using the standard equations, and also by WM, using it's own internal low-level calculus, via the 'kinetic()' output, from which i simply deduct radial ½mV², with zero deviation between the two derivations.<br /><br />Thus, if i HAD made such a mistake, we'd see that gap between what i'm calculating vs what WM is calculating..<br /><br />As a matter of fact, noticing such a gap in a previous series of tests was a key inspiration here - i'd been calculating MoI as mr² based on the actual orbital mass radii, but this metric was failing when the orbiting masses began axial rotation... at which point, WM was measuring twice as much energy as me! Thus it became evident that the MoI had devolved to the net orbiting mass focused at the orbiting axes - so long as they were rotating themselves, their actual mass radii became irrelevant to the orbital MoI!<br /><br />That result was from earlier in the same thread:<br /><br />https://i.ibb.co/MM9dGCd/dt511.gif<br /><br />..i figured the solution back then, but the MoI calcs were already too long (WM limits equation lengths) and the fix involved adding a logical operation to switch between MoI terms when the orbiting axes were rotating vs non rotating, so i left it bugged, and accepted WM's figure over mine. Now i've switched to calculating the CONDITIONAL MoI and, as you can see, in perfect agreement with WM's internal calcs.<br /><br />As for the motors & actuators, they're not 'electrical' in any sense, merely the application of torque * angle, and linear force * displacement - so neither has any means of applying any more energy than their respective plotted workloads.<br /><br />So, yes - in any other circumstance, we'd see a distinct curve plot as torque changed over the given angle. The area under that curve would be the work done by the motor.<br /><br />However in this case, we get a flat line! Why? The torque being supplied by the motor is being instantly reciprocated with an identical inertial torque of equal sign and magnitude!!!<br /><br />Where's THAT come from? The effective MoI switch-down caused by applying that torque against the central rotor!<br /><br />So, the instant the orbiting motors activate, orbital MoI flips from '16' down to '8', and since rotKE = ½Iw², and momentum is conserved, per the MoI exploit we now have twice the mass at half the radius and twice the RPM, hence twice the rotKE.<br /><br />IOW we've caused CoAM to create KE in order to preserve the product of MoI & RPM!<br /><br />Note also that at no time does (nor could) the system have any more or less rotKE than its conserved momentum as a function of its MoI / RPM distribution.. it's always precisely the 'right' amount..<br /><br />You're right on the cusp of the penny-drop..<br /><br />I'm just your typical skint loner hermit with a shite-but-all-consuming job, no academic contacts whatsoever and the very cliche of impossible claims. Prince Albert, in a can, available in tartan OR striped paint! Trust me i have a bronze swimming certificate!<br /><br />Lil' help, anyone..? Vibratorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18175744698320817417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4862207778089432835.post-45467440754522999462019-02-03T08:42:36.514+00:002019-02-03T08:42:36.514+00:00The movement will not open without the principle t...The movement will not open without the principle that Bessler discovered.<br />If you've come to this conclusion, it fits. Then the search for movement is narrowed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com