MrTim wrote:* * * * *
My, my. How "nice" of you to put words in my mouth that were never there to begin with.
* * * * *
Mr. Tim...
Yes. I thought so as well. Glad you perceived the truth of it, and found the kindness to put it to print. Thank you.
Since your posts are among my greatest favorites, as distinguished from many, many others which are not, and even though up 'till now I've not had the courage nor opportunity to apprise you of this, as only now I have it to do, I just could not resist flattering you outright by means of that admittedly crude attempt at emulation, and besides, it just HAD to be said, what I (you) did, no?
As I see it, the problem we have here is that you give us too little of your self-foreshortened opinionation, so, might we now have MORE of it, rather than the less?
In Sweet Bitterness, and to a TRUE comrade-in-arms,
Best Regards
James (Cynic-In-Chief, BesslerWheel)
Last edited by primemignonite on Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
John Collins wrote:the build is progressing and it's slow, not because it's complex, but because although I have the principle and other things, I don't have exact measurement so there is a certain amount of trial and error.. snip ..But I'll get there.
Congratulations John in all sincerity. When you make such definitive predictions & statements I tend to listen carefully. You are not a man to make loose comments or get over excited about possibilities lightly, so you must be very confident of your analysis & findings. And who better to finally solve the mystery of Bessler's wheel !
Your update of PMAAMS? "Blueprint for Free Energy" should top the New York best seller list for some time ;) Especially if it is the full work up to a final solution with plans etc, it will go supernova, in many languages.
I can't wait to read your final installment in this epic of an adventure & finally lay this mystery to rest & move to the next phase of discussion, but perhaps with a little less manic intensity than I've poured into solving this perplexing riddle up to now. I'm sure I'm not alone in that ;)
It must be wonderful to see how every clue can be reverse engineered into the design including the "do you still not understand" enigma ?
I also would like to thank John for starting this very informative topic.
It will be useful as we now approach a new age of science.
Thanks Fletcher and everyone for posting important information.
Ken, the build is progressing and it's slow, not because it's complex, but because although I have the principle and other things, I don't have exact measurement so there is a certain amount of trial and error. Ralph will know what I mean.
Ralph knows exactly what you mean! although considerable time and material can be used up, trial and error is the answer. One failing design after another is torn down to use in another. I do not believe that Ken's WM2D method of the same concept for over a year, now will ever cut it!
I am currently involved in a design that involves a WM2D user who seems rather skillful in its use. He claims that the design in question is impossible to simulate with WM2D. (Please do not take this as challenge by requesting for the design) It is a "skunk works" project
I've said before that I think that success will come from who ever is tinkering with an actual build rather than simulation software. I know that you have little choice in how you design and test models and you have show ingenuity in your designs, and your way is quick, whereas my way is slow and fiddly and tedious but it covers all possibilities.
Tinkering with an actual build feeds the mind with innovation, leading to new ideas. Simulations only shows what you feed it. It seems that WM2D must show a pin or reference point to work around. In real build this is not a requirement. I agree and put my bet on John's statement that it will be a hands-on builder that comes forward with a working wheel!
Hands on leads to better perception of Bessler's parables. It has shown me ways that have been flatly denied, or said impossible. Such statements are made because that is the way it has always been done!
Hopefully in a few weeks I will be able to elaborate on the above statement.
Hey Ralph, I don't want to subvert John's moment but I just can't let your comments about working model pass unanswered. You seem to have a jaundiced eye about its reliability & capabilities, but I don't expect you to change your impression any time soon, just perhaps respect that for some people it is just another tool to use like you would use a wrench.
I don't think you would hesitate to use a 3D modeling program to design parts if you were able (I can't BTW). WM is simply a 2D modeling program that uses mathematics to assign forces & values to objects. Basically mass, acceleration due to gravity & inertia of objects. It simply mimics the real world environment through the use of mathematics & programing.
Just about all behaviour is resultant from these three things. It also includes elasticity & density of different building materials if you want to go further into it but I don't use that capability usually. Although it shows on the screen as 2D it calculates as though the object had depth (like 3D) & you can manipulate these details manually if you prefer.
Its greatest strength is the ability to change coordinates, ratio's, lengths, mass, pin joint positions etc at will very quickly. It doesn't replace innovative thinking & you need a good idea to try out just like a real build. It is only a tool as said many times by many users here.
There is very little it can't do in the right hands imo, its just 100 times faster than building the real simulation. Like many here Rainer & I do both & therefore can check its predictions, performance & accuracy in most situations & assign a certain level of confidence to its reliability which is comforting & expedient ;)
I do not believe that you will be subverting John's moment, or mine. I reiterate the second quote of Johns in my previous post.
I am not saying that WM2D does not have it's place. There are some members out their that know how to use it to their advantage, just as I have skills in the empirical approach.
For the benefit of all members I would love to debate the pro's and con's of Simm building verses hand's-on tactic's. My present situation would make it difficult, as I would have to divulge confidential material.
Today, while actually building I have possibly answered two more clues in Besslers depictions and text. Would I have accidently stumble upon them if I were using WM2D? Not being a user of it, I can not answer that. But I am stuck with the thought that I probably would not have!
Then we shall agree that it is another string to the builders bow that can save a lot of time. That at least is fact. Ultimately, if a sim proves promising a real build is always required as it is the benchmark test.
Could you have deduced Bessler parables from using WM alone ? I would say absolutely, as when you use WM, you build the componentry in the same way you do in real life, only on a flat screen. So any insights gained from the building process are interchangeable imo, based on the observations I've formed from using both methods & I shall leave it at that.
I spent many futile years doing actual physical builds of model wheels and I am well aware of the advantages and disadvantages of that approach.
In every case, I did not proceed randomly, but had a preliminary idea which I had already "modeled"...on paper, at least. Once that looked promising, I proceeded to attempt a physical realization of what sketches I had made. And, of course, none of it ever worked. While I certainly enjoy working with my hands and tools and the challenge of executing a precisely crafted device, the simple fact is that it was all very time consuming and greatly slowed down my progress.
Now, with WM2D at my disposal, I am basically doing the same thing. But, now my sketches can come alive with parts that interact much like their physical counterparts in the real world would, IF I decided to physically make them...why, I can even make impacts between parts produce various sound effects!
The great benefit of CAD modeling before one builds is that it greatly shortens the time needed to determine, with a very high degree of reliability, whether one's pet design will work. If not, as, sadly, is usually the case, one is free to move on to considering new approaches. And, with each failed CAD model, one will find oneself getting ideas for future approaches just as he would if he had spent months working on a physical model which had failed.
Now, with WM2D, I can look at things going on within a wheel design which were never possible for me to see with physical models. For example, I can track the CG of the assembly of parts and immediately know if I am getting close to having something that will chronically keep it on a wheel's descending side during wheel rotation. When restricted to only handling physical models, I had to use my faulty mechanical "instinct" to give me this information. I soon noticed that whenever one of my models failed, it was because I had made an erroneous assumption about how parts would interact in the real world.
So, while the great Bessler proved that it is entirely possible to achieve a working gravity wheel solely through physical modeling, IMO, this is not the most efficient way to go about the task. IF he had had WM2D available, I am most confident that he would have used it extensively and, most likely, found his working mechanism in a matter of a year or so rather than after a decade of frustrating effort.
Shortly after becoming familiar enough with WM2D to begin making models of various designs in a short amount of time, I committed myself to never again attempting a physical build until and unless I first had an undeniably working WM2D model's design first to guide me through the physical build. I do not regret this decision and intend to maintain it.
My recommendation to all newbie mobilists and to veterans alike is to obtain the free download of WM2D and begin practicing with it in your spare time. If you want to continue working on your physical model, then fine, do so. But, I think if you give WM2D a fair chance, then, before too long, you find yourself in 100% agreement with my approach.
Don't let your initial impression of WM2D scare you off...it's probably the most "user friendly" CAD program that ever has or ever will be available. It will save you a load of wasted time in your pursuit of the Holy Grail of mechanics and it will inspire your imagination at the same time.
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
I agree with Ken and have used his advice to a level where I can go to the next step with wm2d if I choose.
I have building skills and have used my hands to bend, brake, and hope for results that can be done with the touch of my fingers if I choose.
The program is no different to me than using a pry bar to move a large rock.
The only difference is using wm2d is that it creates an image, and checks it before you actually go out and pry that bolder without knowing it is going to roll down the hill and not into place where you thought it was going to go.
Take advice for someone who has used every tool in the rental shop.
Download the program and you will set yourself free of many unnecessary pains in physical building and testing.
You only have to set your mind to a concept of thinking before acting.
It is simply the next step from drawing it on a piece of shop cardboard box. However it brings it into a dimension of understanding more about what you are doing and want to do.
Could what you are building be put together in a modeling program?
I think what you are doing, e.g. claiming to have deciphered the wheel plans, but, then it never works, is a good way to keep the mystery alive perpetually.
And again, it will never work.
Contra
"The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Emerson
"The history of our race, and each individual's experience, are sown thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal. " Twain
1712 - yes of course it can be tested in a modelling program, its not that complex. I note a certain hostility in your posts, but I can't blame you for being sceptical of my claims. Unfortunately I can't say anything to quell your suspicions without giving away what I do know. Why you think it won't work and yet at the same time you continue to visit this forum is a question, perhaps only you can answer - I certainly can't.
Your suggestion that I am prolonging the mystery by claiming to know how the wheel works and then failing to make a working model may indeed have that result, but couldn't be further from the truth. I have apologised for the length of time I'm taking to finish this project, and tomorrow and probably for several days next week, I shall be unable to work on it again so more delay I'm afraid. When its done I'll tell everyone, but almost certainly not straight away - maybe not for a month or two. So why not put my efforts out of your mind and concentrate on all the other attempts enlightening this forum.
As a sceptic of course you will have nothing to offer this forum other than negative feedback, but sceptics can be persuaded - why not reconsider the evidence with an open mind and perhaps you will find some convincing evidence that might cause some doubt to form in your mind?
