The Bessler Wheel, mystery solved.

[fletcher]

As I said to you in an earlier post - build two views side by side on the same page - one side view

• , the other from the front ||.
  
  Build your mechs in the normal way in 2D in the 'O' view - the sim will calculate all your forces etc for you in the normal way.
  
  What you have trouble representing is the forces in the z axis - so, if you have elements that rise & fall in the z axis make a static representation of the levers or whatever in the || view - create some inputs & outputs boxes - make an output for Cf's [or whatever]  & manully enter the formula - Cf, for example is mv^2 - so as long as you have outputs for velocity of the falling lever you can feed that into the new output box ( |body[?].v| ) - you can use the mass as well ( body[?].mass ) - for radius create a rod from CoR to mass - deactivate rod length - create an output for rod length - take the output ( Output[?].y1 ) & divide the mv^2/radius (rod length) - now you have Cf's as an output etc.
  
  You tie inputs & outputs & forces generated etc between to the two models on the same page - I often use the force element to actually see the forces waxing & waning etc - that input is fed elsewhere where needed.
  
  Last, debug your program i.e. make sure everything is logical so you don't get a false positive by having forgotten to include something that should be there.
  
  I'll post a sim of an aerodynamic model where airfoils moved in the z axis that I made many years ago - study the sim & cannibalize what you require to duplicate your actions & forces as required.
  

[gurangax]

As I said to you in an earlier post - build two views side by side on the same page - one side view

• , the other from the front ||.
  
  Build your mechs in the normal way in 2D in the 'O' view - the sim will calculate all your forces etc for you in the normal way.
  
  What you have trouble representing is the forces in the z axis - so, if you have elements that rise & fall in the z axis make a static representation of the levers or whatever in the || view - create some inputs & outputs boxes - make an output for Cf's [or whatever]  & manully enter the formula - Cf, for example is mv^2 - so as long as you have outputs for velocity of the falling lever you can feed that into the new output box ( |body[?].v| ) - you can use the mass as well ( body[?].mass ) - for radius create a rod from CoR to mass - deactivate rod length - create an output for rod length - take the output ( Output[?].y1 ) & divide the mv^2/radius (rod length) - now you have Cf's as an output etc.
  
  You tie inputs & outputs & forces generated etc between to the two models on the same page - I often use the force element to actually see the forces waxing & waning etc - that input is fed elsewhere where needed.
  
  Last, debug your program i.e. make sure everything is logical so you don't get a false positive by having forgotten to include something that should be there.
  
  I'll post a sim of an aerodynamic model where airfoils moved in the z axis that I made many years ago - study the sim & cannibalize what you require to duplicate your actions & forces as required.
  

thanks for the file. I will try understanding it first then do something about the design.


regards

[fletcher]

I should have included the AL-Finish1 pic - it shows the forces & the wings closed etc.

But, as had been said, why do you need a sim when you have a physical model ? - the sim is a nice clean way to draw a picture rather than labouring with paint etc so perhaps that's your reason.

[gurangax]

I should have included the AL-Finish1 pic - it shows the forces & the wings closed etc.

But, as had been said, why do you need a sim when you have a physical model ? - the sim is a nice clean way to draw a picture rather than labouring with paint etc so perhaps that's your reason.

well I have much free time so its better filled with something. Anyway I would very much like to know if it can be done with wm2d as well.


regards

[mscoffman]

Hey gurangax .. you are good at quoting Bessler's clues.

...

Today we are more versed in physics speak, laws of conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum, thermodynamics, & Noether's Theorem of symmetries - Bessler didn't know all these 'limitations' & symmetries, or terms - he just wanted to solve the age old problem of the true PMM - he did use two English terms when writing his notes in German in MT (beside his wood cuts) that we recognise - they being 'force' & 'movement' used in the descriptions of MT's 28 & 29 - my point being that he did not refer to nor describe energy & angular momentum or stuff we grapple with every day - just force, movement & momentum (used in other publications) - s'Gravesande hadn't formalized his theory of KE = mv^2 (later adjusted to 1/2mv^2 with the SI system) & gravity as mass x acceleration wasn't defined well either - he never described his wheels as gravity wheels, just said there was imbalance, & that they couldn't reach/find 'punctum quietus' or force equilibrium once in motion.
...

Yeah, I think this is amazing...So maybe if you have complete mastery of the theory, then maybe you can't see the forest
from the trees.

To some extent I was interested in whether Bessler had an associate who was a mathematician? In fact I looked
up whether Hamilton was alive at the same time as Bessler. Hamilton first proposed Hamiltonians and Quaterion matrix
mathematics. Quaterians are used to compute the physical state of systems. The retired space shuttle used quaterians
for Nav. calculations. Hamilton though was a junior to Bessler by a century.

A mathematician would have been looking at the form of the solution to equations and how it affected the solution's
outcome. He could have been directing Bessler to look at specific mechanical areas where the equational solution
could have mathematical problems, as to where OU then might be observed.
 
This thread has made me aware of this guy Wagner who Bessler talked about as "throwing his calculations out of the window"
when he found his solution. I'm going to try to look this guy Wagner up. The problem is unless the solution-of-Bessler's
is true, then Bessler is not a scientist. If he doesn't deserve a place in scientific history then his associates won't necessarily
be remembered there either. Because this; I would urge Gruganax if he has a solution to make it public so we can straighten
this out. In, science facts don't stand alone but send out "interference evidence patterns" sailing through associated and analog
systems of understanding. That is why supression of information (like nuclear information after WWII) is in general an anathema
to science.

[/font] ...

knowing what you know about physics & technical descriptives used today which conservation law do you believe Bessler's principle invalidates ?

My money is on CoAM, if its true !

ETA: seems Charly2 wants your words too.

The question is: Is conservation of energy law true only in mathematically simple systems...Like when spacecraft are billions of miles
from earth so that only gravitational force prevails. vs. Is there a transfer function that couples energy from zero-point for instance
without any record keeping as to how much is/was actually coupled out. We are here only to annotate not to design the f*cker.


:S:MarkSCoffman