Hypothesis .. Raising GPE without using Law of Levers ? ..

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Fletcher,
the Apologia wheel does exact that what you are describing.

It bounces when you turn the hamster cage either to the left or to the right.
It is an exchange of inertia between the hamster cage and the apologia wheel while tuning in the same direction.
The Apologia wheel has the diameter of 3/8 of the hamster cage.

The center of mass of the Apologia wheel is wobbling during the turning.
It is wobbling up and down and also from left to right.

[Gregory]

Hi Gregory .. wow, you put plenty of work and fine detail into building that sim - it looks complex to most but I think I get what you are trying to do - I did watch it stretch its legs more than a few times, and read over your descriptions and analysis as I went so I had a solid mind map of what I was looking at and what was supposed to be happening as you described ..

You are right - I think it would be a hard real-world build and the sim gives probably the best result possible .. we know B's. runners were simple to understand and easy to build ( as said from himself, and Karl's observations ) which suggests minimal complexity and opportunity for things to go wrong imo - that's a natural evolutionary process of development, and refinement over many years and runners ..

Whatever fundamental ' movement causing ' principles he used I would think after 30 years the simplest form would have been adopted that was the most reliable imo .. most ideas can be simplified down as they become more familiar ( we do it with sims all the time ) and I'm sure his runners had no unnecessary parts or redundant movements ..

Anyways - I think this sim may ultimately suffer from the limitations of the sim environment wrt Conservation of Energy Law - probably no surprise there ..

Because it uses springs in the variator and then inertial interplays etc, then in its simplest description it appears to be Energy In becomes Energy Out less any collision dissipative Energy losses ( not conservative ) .. altho the action could/would be chaotic and give a feedback as designed, I would expect the feedback to not be consistently net positive and grow the Rotational Kinetic Energy and Angular Momentum , imo ..

Thx for putting all that thought and effort into building that sim - I know from personal experience it is not an easy or quick process, especially when complex behind the scenes formulas are involved to latch and release objects etc - for those wondering physical latchs etc can be managed at the close up scale but are a mare at this scale ..

Hey, thanks!
Was really a great moment to come up with this sim!

I agree, ultimately this wheel suffers from the same problem... There is no more energy input into the system after the starting push, and although it moves, transfers, and recirculates its internal energy in an effective or clever way, that still doesn't constitutes as a growth. The spring variator is messing with the total energy of the wheel, and supposedly it collects the same amount of loss as gained by the OOB. And the lifting still have a penalty in the form of an increased pull-back or negative torque, but it's assumed that later you gain that back as the opposite action happens too... I still wonder whether it could be different with a MoI or momentum type of variator, haven't tried it so far...

Either there is no way to make these OOB designs work, no matter what special trick, passive inertia/lifting or other ingenious idea we try (the most likely scenario according to known physics). Or we are already too far into a territory which can't be completely and realistically predicted by the usual sim environment…

Regarding Bessler's principle…
Sure, whatever he used (even including the possibility of fraud) it must be something simple and perfected, distilled down to its most effective form, or perhaps there are more forms (ways) to learn about and to master.

[Fletcher]

Hey, thanks!

Was really a great moment to come up with this sim!

I agree, ultimately this wheel suffers from the same problem... There is no more energy input into the system after the starting push, and although it moves, transfers, and recirculates its internal energy in an effective or clever way, that still doesn't constitutes as a growth. The spring variator is messing with the total energy of the wheel, and supposedly it collects the same amount of loss as gained by the OOB.

And the lifting still have a penalty in the form of an increased pull-back or negative torque, but it's assumed that later you gain that back as the opposite action happens too...

I still wonder whether it could be different with a MoI or momentum type of variator, haven't tried it so far...

Either there is no way to make these OOB designs work, no matter what special trick, passive inertia/lifting or other ingenious idea we try (the most likely scenario according to known physics). Or we are already too far into a territory which can't be completely and realistically predicted by the usual sim environment…

Regarding Bessler's principle…

Sure, whatever he used (even including the possibility of fraud) it must be something simple and perfected, distilled down to its most effective form, or perhaps there are more forms (ways) to learn about and to master.

Hi Gregory .. I will come by tomorrow with a proper mapped out and thought about answer that your comments deserve ..

In the mean time for interests sake here is your sim with a simple mod I made - I swapped out your perfect springs in your " variator " with dampened spring elements ( to give a very small amount of energy loss to dampening i..e some realistic dissipative energy loss ) ..

[Fletcher]

Apologies .. internet has been down ..

I agree, ultimately this wheel ( sim ) suffers from the same problem... There is no more energy input into the system after the starting push, and although it moves, transfers, and recirculates its internal energy in an effective or clever way, that still doesn't constitutes as a growth.

The spring variator is messing with the total energy of the wheel, and supposedly it collects the same amount of loss as gained by the OOB.

And the lifting still have a penalty in the form of an increased pull-back or negative torque, but it's assumed that later you gain that back as the opposite action happens too...

I still wonder whether it could be different with a MoI or momentum type of variator, haven't tried it so far...

Either there is no way to make these OOB designs work, no matter what special trick, passive inertia/lifting or other ingenious idea we try (the most likely scenario according to known physics). Or we are already too far into a territory which can't be completely and realistically predicted by the usual sim environment…

Hi again Gregory .. I have a couple of thoughts to share on your sim and post - hope they make sense in the cold light of day ..

Firstly .. I agree, your sim is a clever and well executed sim - as you say you used some clever back and forth manipulations ( transfers ) of an initial push into motion, giving it some start-out Energy ( Kinetic and/or Potential ) - and then it efficiently recirculated that one-time energy input - but the initial energy input can not grow into more total energy than it started with - and as you say that is what classical physics would suggest is the only possible outcome ( we are not counting any dissipative energy losses so it is as near a prefect/ideal system as can be managed ) of a closed system ..

* Personally I think that the sim is treating the mechanical interactions as a closed system which would not allow for the ingress of external energy ( e.g. from any source such as momentum transfer ) to be transformed and to increase the total system energy, or maintain itself and do any external work ( including coping with dissipative energy losses ) - it's one of my biggest concerns about relying solely on, or deferring to, only sim environment predictions - I suggest we have to have a more holistic approach and break down and analyze the actions ( and reactions ) into separate smaller bite sizes - and then in our minds put them back together to form an opinion about how the combined whole would likely operate - this means to me using the sim as a design, testing, and diagnostic tool, but not thinking that it is the ultimate authority or predictor of the one and only final outcome ( physics says it it can't predict anything else but Conservation of Energy, and Conservation of Momentum ) - so in a sense " we are already too far into a territory which can't be completely and realistically predicted by the usual sim environment " as you thought might be an insurmountable hurdle in our use of sims to solve the quest for a runner .. IOW's, use the sim wisely but perhaps recognize that it may have limitations in our quest for predicting mechanical actions leading to free energy outcomes, therefore workarounds and cross-checking, under the lens of our knowledge and experience is required ..

Secondly .. While your sim does have an inertial component to it, it is not the same use or manipulation of inertia that my A-Prime first mover attempts to showcase - in yours the shape of the body does not change - in mine the A-Prime shape ( and its MOI ) does change as it is deployed - in my theory this is a very important facet of operation - i.e. the cause of why it can bounce the whole-of-wheel and still follow thru and recover its original shape ( and PE ) - the inertia of the 2 arm weights and the driver weight force it to keep moving on thru as it morphs - I have experimented with the ratio of arms and driver masses and get the same or similar results across a range - i.e. when let's say each arm mass is 5 kg ( 5 + 5 ) and the driver is 10 kg ( 2 * 5 ) , and again when the arm masses are say 5 kg each and the driver is also 5 kg ( 5 + 5 + 5 ) - and variations of this up and down etc - it seems very forgiving with no hard-and-fast sweet-spot or ratio - but admittedly I have done only limited stress-testing - I was more concerned with an initial mechanical device exhibiting shape changing ( morphing ) capability potentially leading to full recovery while giving a seemingly " free " bounce factor - this is a work in progress needing further exploration to have full confidence in the intended functioning ..

OK .. I have stressed the importance in my hypothesis of the mechanical implementation of a 2 part wheel system ..

I. The A-Prime first mover " piston analogue " I discussed above, to give a free or near free bounce factor to all of the wheel - this has to be simmed and stress tested to see if the predicted recovery result is reliable and repeatable, and across what range and ratio of dimensions and mass inputs etc ..

2. The OOB mechanics ( i.e. my one-way Swingers ) that thru the appropriation of the A-Prime bounce factor swing upwards into torque positions - and this results is not just a little bit of asymmetric torque and gentle turning, but a huge wheel acceleration as demonstrated and recorded of B's. public wheels ..

.......................

I will post this now before I lose it as my internet connection - and come back shortly with a follow on ..

[Fletcher]

ok, now I'm going to discuss a simple and well known mechanical metaphor for the Swingers and their proposed function in my theory of a runner ..

* many moons ago when I was a preschooler my parents gave me a gift - iirc they called it a " Whirligig " - it was a spinning top that you pressed down on the handle ( and pulled it up again ) and it caused the bell shaped top to spin rapidly and stand up - the more I pumped the handle the faster and faster the top rotated ( see pic in attachments ) - today I understand the pumping action caused it to rotate and precess and this lead to it standing upright and maintaining its rotation as long as I kept pumping it ( preferably on a hard surface ) - if I stopped pumping it it slowed down and fell over .. the point is that a pump was required to set things in train - and that took some energy - and if I wanted it to spin faster I gave it more and more pumps - had hours of fun with that toy ..

Today I think about it and and I see the energy put into it - I don't expect it to have more Rotational KE that the energy given to it by each hand pump - and I also see how each subsequent pump added more energy to the system and the RKE increased accordingly ..

While energy was being transformed it was also a mechanical process of MA and force redirection - changing Linear up and down force * distance ( WD ) to Rotational motion and RKE ..

And .. since I like to keep things simple this toy metaphor fits well to my intended Swingers function - i.e. the A-Prime pumps the system and the Swingers react such that the wheel grows in RKE, like the Whirligig .. however precession has no place in this theory of a runner and it is merely the converting of Linear Input to Rotational Output ..

Clearly, and not unsurprisingly in the Whirligig, energy input was required to start the top spinning, and to increase its rpm after each pump etc ..

* And this is where my theory departs from a childs toy metaphor [ Toy's Page coincidence ?! ] - in that if the A-Prime can cause a bounce that the Swingers can repurpose to set torque, and also recover its original shape and PE whilst undergoing the morphing and bouncing exercise, then no further input of classical energy ( synchronous with WD ) is required to increase the wheel RKE and Angular Momentum from that moment on ..

IOW's the morphing A-Prime acting in conjunction with a sprung/tensioned medium to create the bounce drives the swingers into position and is hypothetically a free or near-free action/input ( unlike the Whirligig spinning top handle being physically pumped ), requiring no further classical energy inputs ( WD ) to reset and deploy again - and the wheel would gain in RKE and Angular Momentum ..

.........................

[Fletcher]

As much as thought experiments can be fun and take us places, the A-Prime first mover with bounce factor is imo the mission critical component that must pass muster to give this theory of a runner legs and a fighting chance of working ..

[Fletcher]

And at the risk of stating the obvious .. Bessler didn't have a sim program to put limits on him ..

But like all of us he used his mind-sim to plan and visualize how his chosen mechanics might work out - his imagination and observational skills were his allies ..

imo, a particular mechanical action he had observed once in motion caught his attention for its potential to do the unexpected ..

[thx4]

a particular mechanical action he had observed once in motion caught his attention for its potential to do the unexpected ..

Thanks Fletcher, keep on making us dream :)

[Gregory]

Hi again Gregory .. I have a couple of thoughts to share on your sim and post - hope they make sense in the cold light of day ..

Firstly .. I agree, your sim is a clever and well executed sim - as you say you used some clever back and forth manipulations ( transfers ) of an initial push into motion, giving it some start-out Energy ( Kinetic and/or Potential ) - and then it efficiently recirculated that one-time energy input - but the initial energy input can not grow into more total energy than it started with - and as you say that is what classical physics would suggest is the only possible outcome ( we are not counting any dissipative energy losses so it is as near a prefect/ideal system as can be managed ) of a closed system ..

* Personally I think that the sim is treating the mechanical interactions as a closed system which would not allow for the ingress of external energy ( e.g. from any source such as momentum transfer ) to be transformed and to increase the total system energy, or maintain itself and do any external work ( including coping with dissipative energy losses ) - it's one of my biggest concerns about relying solely on, or deferring to, only sim environment predictions - I suggest we have to have a more holistic approach and break down and analyze the actions ( and reactions ) into separate smaller bite sizes - and then in our minds put them back together to form an opinion about how the combined whole would likely operate - this means to me using the sim as a design, testing, and diagnostic tool, but not thinking that it is the ultimate authority or predictor of the one and only final outcome ( physics says it it can't predict anything else but Conservation of Energy, and Conservation of Momentum ) - so in a sense " we are already too far into a territory which can't be completely and realistically predicted by the usual sim environment " as you thought might be an insurmountable hurdle in our use of sims to solve the quest for a runner .. IOW's, use the sim wisely but perhaps recognize that it may have limitations in our quest for predicting mechanical actions leading to free energy outcomes, therefore workarounds and cross-checking, under the lens of our knowledge and experience is required ..

Yes, we can argue that the sim treats every experiment as a closed system...
But what else it could do? Basically, it has to do like that, otherwise it could not function properly. So, this is a requirement. On the other hand in certain special cases it can be potentially a shortcoming too, you're correct with that.
But, IMO this closed system vs open system debate can be a misleading territory, and I believe this is the point where our viewpoints may differ. I think if Bessler's wheel was real and we could examine and study it now in detail, then we would find that it is physically/mathematically looks like a closed system, just like normal. But somehow still works, and that's the real conundrum. Somehow you have to (at least) temporarily manipulate or brake one or more laws to arrive at a different outcome. For example put two different laws against each other in a logical trap, so one of them has to broke, and likely we can harvest some advantage when that happens.

Actually, this is not just empty belief on my part. I could back it up with stuff. During my research I sim-made several different versions of ordinary closed system machines which (after given some initial kinetic energy) can lose energy continuously. Doing this action while there is no friction is set to any of its components, as well as placed into empty space where there is no air resistance to slow it down and no other physical objects or outsider forces around to connect with. Assume all these circumstances and you observe that the machine still can quickly most of its KE, it just get lost, does not transferred to anything or anywhere... But where the energy went then? :D

Basically, that's the only reason I didn't gave up on my research. Because I was thinking... If I can make energy disappear like that, then somehow shouldn't opposite be possible as well?
And that question really bugged me, like I can't simply disprove that logic.
Light and darkness, jin and jang, angel and demon…

At very first I thought it's just a useless anomaly. But later I figured that's already breaking CoM and CoE, so I started to investigate and study the math carefully. And after a lot of painful study I found out where the math brakes down and why. So, I understood it and even written a python script to simulate, then cross checked the results with wm2d, and yepp they produced the same output graphs, was such a revelation.

The only reason I haven't yet written the theory paper of this is because I was thinking I can push a little harder and do the opposite of the effect, so instead of a dissipator I can arrive at a yet unknown accelerator/motor, and then I can write about the two things together. But boy was I wrong... The opposite was proved to be tremendously harder, like an insane level difficulty. You can't just flip a switch or add an idler gear here or there and call it a day... Nah, unfortunately doesn't work like that. I figured it needs a totally different way of thinking, different mechanical structures, different math approach and stuff, so really it's a pain... I arrived somewhere lately, had some maths results, but still far from completion and needs more testing, and I feel drained.

Ok, back to topic. Closed or open system for a runner...
The first is an intrinsic, possibly self-circular phenomenon where "the wheel's own inner force must come into being without external momentum being applied".
The second is an idea where something from the outside flows into the wheel adding energy and that way motion can grow.
I think both are valid as a hypothesis, and also there is a possibility that when much more deeply studied we can find that they are after all the same thing on a deeper level.

So yeah, I think it's perfectly fine if we have different viewpoints or approach to things.
And I also agree with the holistic approach... Using sims is inherently a back and forth game, you can have false positives or false negatives, or undecisive things, so our Bs detector have to be on all the time, and we have to develop a feel for it. As well as examining the components exclusively is standard, I am also doing that… you know sometimes it's not possible to put everything together, cause the sim will be fried alive! :D
Usually that's the time to simplify and make it better.

Secondly .. While your sim does have an inertial component to it, it is not the same use or manipulation of inertia that my A-Prime first mover attempts to showcase - in yours the shape of the body does not change - in mine the A-Prime shape ( and its MOI ) does change as it is deployed - in my theory this is a very important facet of operation - i.e. the cause of why it can bounce the whole-of-wheel and still follow thru and recover its original shape ( and PE ) - the inertia of the 2 arm weights and the driver weight force it to keep moving on thru as it morphs - I have experimented with the ratio of arms and driver masses and get the same or similar results across a range - i.e. when let's say each arm mass is 5 kg ( 5 + 5 ) and the driver is 10 kg ( 2 * 5 ) , and again when the arm masses are say 5 kg each and the driver is also 5 kg ( 5 + 5 + 5 ) - and variations of this up and down etc - it seems very forgiving with no hard-and-fast sweet-spot or ratio - but admittedly I have done only limited stress-testing - I was more concerned with an initial mechanical device exhibiting shape changing ( morphing ) capability potentially leading to full recovery while giving a seemingly " free " bounce factor - this is a work in progress needing further exploration to have full confidence in the intended functioning ..

Yes, I absolutely agree. In that sim the balance beam is just a passive inertial component, and its function is not like the MoI variators. I used MoI variators before during different experiments, just not in the form of the A-prime. Yes, it's important to test these out separately first. They have to be powerful, the more the better. Like if it can switch speed between 20 and 90 Rpm, that's a good sign. Sounds overkill, but it's not. If you put that on a wheel with mass and OOB weights, the effect/amplitude will be dampened down, and also the A-prime itself adds to the total mass.

Yes, this needs a lot of testing, perfected and have a feel for it, I understand.
I am working with some new variator ideas, and also back to my inertia/CF research. I am afraid I won't be as much help with the A-prime now, but still be here to follow.

OK .. I have stressed the importance in my hypothesis of the mechanical implementation of a 2 part wheel system ..

I. The A-Prime first mover " piston analogue " I discussed above, to give a free or near free bounce factor to all of the wheel - this has to be simmed and stress tested to see if the predicted recovery result is reliable and repeatable, and across what range and ratio of dimensions and mass inputs etc ..

2. The OOB mechanics ( i.e. my one-way Swingers ) that thru the appropriation of the A-Prime bounce factor swing upwards into torque positions - and this results is not just a little bit of asymmetric torque and gentle turning, but a huge wheel acceleration as demonstrated and recorded of B's. public wheels ..

Yes, two part or two subsystem working together for a greater goal. I always liked this approach in general, in logic.

I don't want to be negative here, but I think a hidden problem lies here too. Whenever I experimented with something like this, aka a 2 part setup with OOB system, I always found the OOB influence to be not sufficient or ineffective. I always felt it doesn't have the punch to it, just like in the last swinger wheel with the balance beam…
I forget to emphasize this at my previous post, but again I felt the OOB is powerless there. It just felt so weak. Let's say I am not a big fan of OOB mechs. :)

I am also here to warn you, that you might be overestimating the OOB influence compared to the whole.
On the other hand, if they somehow can be shifted into position for essentially free, then who cares about their muscles… That's also true.

[Gregory]

The spinning top is a fascinating toy and can offer many metaphors.
Lots of times I wanted to say a few things about this subject and the toys page, but always forgot it. 8]

The most interesting type is the tippe top, and I think that's the one on the toys page.
Now all the other toys, the hammerman, the ladder, the storks bill, connectedness, etc... are more or less ordinary things. There might be a specialized configuration for them or something, but otherwise they're just simple machines. But I have the impression that the tippe top is different, and placed there separately, also has a kinda "rule them all" feel to it, like a maestro in the band. I think it is a major hint, perhaps the most important.

But what can a tippe top do?
It can increase its own GPE when slowed down. It doesn't do a magical thing since its total energy will be already decreased at that point, but who said that have to happen in every case or every configuration?

Perhaps Bessler figured out some mechanism which have multiple energy states, and can do certain special things at those states, including the possibility of gaining PE in some form after switching between states. That might feel paradoxical, to gain PE while switching to a lower energy state for example... But IMO this can be the major clue Bessler was hinting at with the spinning top analogue.

And at the risk of stating the obvious .. Bessler didn't have a sim program to put limits on him ..

But like all of us he used his mind-sim to plan and visualize how his chosen mechanics might work out - his imagination and observational skills were his allies ..

Right, I think we can be certain he was a deep thinker like that. Otherwise, I believe he would opted to use a sim program if he could, at least for some boring or complicated experiments.

imo, a particular mechanical action he had observed once in motion caught his attention for its potential to do the unexpected ..

That could be the case, I totally agree.
One day he most likely saw something and said: Hmm... that's interesting! Aka the Aha Moment... and the rest is history.

[Gregory]

Actually, this is not just empty belief on my part. I could back it up with stuff. During my research I sim-made several different versions of ordinary closed system machines which (after given some initial kinetic energy) can lose energy continuously. Doing this action while there is no friction is set to any of its components, as well as placed into empty space where there is no air resistance to slow it down and no other physical objects or outsider forces around to connect with. Assume all these circumstances and you observe that the machine still can quickly most of its KE, it just get lost, does not transferred to anything or anywhere... But where the energy went then? :D

Oh, I skipped a few words here and there, sorry for that, arghhh... feel angry for that, can't edit now... For example:
"Assume all these circumstances and you observe that the machine still can quickly lose/dissipate most of its KE, it just get lost, does not transferred to anything or anywhere..."

One more thought about sim world vs. real world, not necessary connected much, just got on my mind:
The universe or reality itself can be thought as a simulation too. It's just dozens of times more sophisticated than what we can comprehend. So, we only have models to converge towards and replicate its workings, but we're not exactly sure how far or close are we... how right or wrong or models are, and how much it may differ. We can only have an educated/estimated guess, and try our bests to fit with reality and experimental data in every way. At some cases we can be very-very close, and at other times we are not so much.

[Fletcher]

Gregory .. to your previous - I hear yuh, and feel the pain - it can be exhausting research and more than tests the resilience, breaks help .. if energy can be made to just disappear ( usually to some background ) then it should be able to be made to appear ( also usually from some background ) - but it is essential to know where it went in order to start a reversal of the process - and that ain't easy to identify even tho you'd think it was, as we both know ..

...Ok, back to topic. Closed or open system for a runner...

The first is an intrinsic, possibly self-circular phenomenon where "the wheel's own inner force must come into being without external momentum being applied".

The second is an idea where something from the outside flows into the wheel adding energy and that way motion can grow.

I think both are valid as a hypothesis, and also there is a possibility that when much more deeply studied we can find that they are after all the same thing on a deeper level.

So yeah, I think it's perfectly fine if we have different viewpoints or approach to things.

And I also agree with the holistic approach... Using sims is inherently a back and forth game, you can have false positives or false negatives, or undecisive things, so our Bs detector have to be on all the time, and we have to develop a feel for it. As well as examining the components exclusively is standard, I am also doing that… you know sometimes it's not possible to put everything together, cause the sim will be fried alive! :D

Usually that's the time to simplify and make it better.

Of course B. said his wheels always remained out of the center of gravity - and this seems logical to get the huge acceleration to operating rpm in only 1 or 2 turns .. so obviously he had a mechanical method to put those weights into position of torque abundance/asymmetry ..

I choose to walk a middle line and try to work within Newton's Laws of Motion and Classical Physics and Mechanics - and to do that the Energy Budget must balance, even if it is not obvious what and where that energy enters the system from .. at least I can, and have done, made a best estimate that it takes a little momentum from the earth moving towards the Wheel when it is pumped ( the usual missing half of the equations of equal and opposite reactions ) ..

To the causal observer in the same FOR it would just look like the the runner was always out of center of gravity .. and that is perfectly fine - however I have always said that to me having a scientifically testable semi-plausible explanation for the source of energy is just as, if not more, important than what the mechanics were to keep it out of the center of gravity - I'm in no rush to turf out Newton's Laws only for someone pondering it at a deeper level to connect some dots and keep him safe, which we should have been able to do ..

[Fletcher]

Yes, I absolutely agree. In that sim the balance beam is just a passive inertial component, and its function is not like the MoI variators. I used MoI variators before during different experiments, just not in the form of the A-prime. Yes, it's important to test these out separately first. They have to be powerful, the more the better. Like if it can switch speed between 20 and 90 Rpm, that's a good sign. Sounds overkill, but it's not. If you put that on a wheel with mass and OOB weights, the effect/amplitude will be dampened down, and also the A-prime itself adds to the total mass.

Yes, this needs a lot of testing, perfected and have a feel for it, I understand.

I am working with some new variator ideas, and also back to my inertia/CF research. I am afraid I won't be as much help with the A-prime now, but still be here to follow.

OK .. I have stressed the importance in my hypothesis of the mechanical implementation of a 2 part wheel system ..

I. The A-Prime first mover " piston analogue " I discussed above, to give a free or near free bounce factor to all of the wheel - this has to be simmed and stress tested to see if the predicted recovery result is reliable and repeatable, and across what range and ratio of dimensions and mass inputs etc ..

2. The OOB mechanics ( i.e. my one-way Swingers ) that thru the appropriation of the A-Prime bounce factor swing upwards into torque positions - and this results is not just a little bit of asymmetric torque and gentle turning, but a huge wheel acceleration as demonstrated and recorded of B's. public wheels ..

Yes, two part or two subsystem working together for a greater goal. I always liked this approach in general, in logic.

I don't want to be negative here, but I think a hidden problem lies here too. Whenever I experimented with something like this, aka a 2 part setup with OOB system, I always found the OOB influence to be not sufficient or ineffective. I always felt it doesn't have the punch to it, just like in the last swinger wheel with the balance beam…

I forget to emphasize this at my previous post, but again I felt the OOB is powerless there. It just felt so weak. Let's say I am not a big fan of OOB mechs. :)

I am also here to warn you, that you might be overestimating the OOB influence compared to the whole.

On the other hand, if they somehow can be shifted into position for essentially free, then who cares about their muscles… That's also true.

I hear yuh .. there is not much in your posts I don't agree with you on Gregory - but here my rationale is simple, and you nailed it at the end - if it's essentially free or low cost, and even not that efficient, then scale will compensate for inadequacies ..

I'm going to start building a new sim in the next few days that I've been thinking about - it is related to the bounce factor and Swingers OOB need to get a rapid acceleration - we'll see how it works out - like the A-Prime experiments you may have a more simple of better way to isolate and test it etc - your thoughts and efforts always appreciated - we all have our own ideas always wanting oxygen and time and space, and I understand that ..

* fwiw call me old fashioned ..

I have always believed that in any field or endevour that if ego's are put aside then collectively great things can be learned and achieved - I will keep on trying to live up to that .. nothing is kept secret or held back - all is a work in progress towards a common goal to vindicate a runner, B's. if provable ..

ETA 1 .. yes I think the addition of the top to the Toy's Page is a paramount guiding principle of some sort - having explored its possible meaning for many years I came to the conclusion that Ockham's Razor is usually the best answer - children play in the lane with them - a chord is pulled ( linear force applied ) and this WD = f * d is converted into rotational motion ( RKE and Momentum ) ..

ETA 2 .. big rains and winds the last few days .. 5 more tonnes of earth or so came down again that I need to move and take care of - such is life ..

[Roxaway59]

Fletcher
I have always believed that in any field or endevour that if ego's are put aside then collectively great things can be learned and achieved - I will keep on trying to live up to that .. nothing is kept secret or held back - all is a work in progress towards a common goal to vindicate a runner, B's. if provable ..

I'm with you on that Fletcher this is not about ego's its about seeing if we can achieve something really positive for the human race.

I've had to get stuck into some much needed DIY and its very time consuming but I'm going to start making some time for simulations. I should add that not a day goes by without me thinking about this enigma.

All the best

Graham

[Gregory]

I'm going to start building a new sim in the next few days that I've been thinking about - it is related to the bounce factor and Swingers OOB need to get a rapid acceleration - we'll see how it works out - like the A-Prime experiments you may have a more simple of better way to isolate and test it etc - your thoughts and efforts always appreciated - we all have our own ideas always wanting oxygen and time and space, and I understand that ..

The experiments with the A-prime is still important, even if I could post up a new powerful variator, it's a different route... Mine is dependent on wheel output, using it as input for it's own action... The A-prime is another route, and I think that is also important to study. And true understanding only comes when one thinkers with it deeply. So yeah, just do your way, it's a good thing!
Later, if a different variator is needed, I think I will be ready with a new/old one.

* fwiw call me old fashioned ..

I have always believed that in any field or endevour that if ego's are put aside then collectively great things can be learned and achieved - I will keep on trying to live up to that .. nothing is kept secret or held back - all is a work in progress towards a common goal to vindicate a runner, B's. if provable ..

Yes, one person can go only a few steps far. But the right individuals together or a community can make much greater, or even big-big steps.
There are also a lot of examples about this from the history of science. And also some sad examples to the contrary, like Edison vs Tesla, or the Wright brothers vs. Glenn Curtis...

ETA 2 .. big rains and winds the last few days .. 5 more tonnes of earth or so came down again that I need to move and take care of - such is life ..

Hhmm... sounds a lot of WD to be done by you! Stay safe!
Back in the days I used to carry a lot of heavy buckets with grapes or fruits, wasn't always fun...