Yeah, no, sorry, me and Frank don't really follow eachother's stuff, much (hi Frank!) - it actually began on the BWF - i'm, uhh, trying to 'elevate' it from there, however - smashing bunch that they are..
One member - Fletcher - understands work / energy equivalence, multiplying forces and displacements etc., but he's about the cream of the crop.. He acknowledges the OU result, but the only conclusion he'll draw for now is error - last i heard he suspects that the motor is supplying extra energy somehow. Contacting the devs would seem one option - if i really suspected error. However i'm here because i've eliminated any such possibility, as far as i'm aware - the gain's being calculated both by the sim's own low-level calculus as well as via the chain of meters being displayed. So for instance, MoI is being calculated as the real-time mass * radius squared, and the rotKE is being calculated as half that MoI * RPM², so the sim is definitely NOT in error, any more than those formulas could be. The gain is real, sir. You assume a priori that it's 'impossible' - that evidence to the contrary can only be interpreted as evidence of error. But if there's no error, then our next fall-back position is to assume we're seeing evidence of an unidentified source. As opposed to creation ex nihilo. That's where i'm at now. Only, the source appears to be the Higgs field. Colossal tho it may be, if the vacuum energy density underwriting the strength of the Higgs interaction should reach a lower local value than its global average (ie. throughout the cosmos), then we precipitate a 'big rip' scenario, according to the quantum cosmologists anyway. But then, maybe we're SUPPOSED to? It'd neatly solve the Fermi paradox anyway.. Dude, i'm outa my depth. Comically so. But precisely because the calcs seem solid. This is way too much responsibility, even if it ain't a doomsday machine. Either way, i'm unable to do much more with it. I can formulate it on a blackboard, sim it, and could probably knock up an Arduino controller and stepper-motor rig. A YT video of such a build, with a couple of £5 multimeters showing the energy drawn is too low, seems a frivolous waste of time and opportunity - if no one accepts the standard KE and F*d terms, a DIY effigy is obviously on a hiding to nowhere.. So showing it in its entirety - guts out, no secrets, no innovations - to fellow 'alternative energy' enthusiasts (ie. fellow peanut gallery inmates) seems the most practical way forwards. It only needs one or two individuals to try the calcs themselves, verify the anomaly, and let word of mouth do the rest. John, above, seems to have at least put pen to paper (no pressure mate!) - maybe he'll verify it, or just throw his hands up.. It's a start. I'm also working thru a short list of people i know are able to solve basic mechanical interactions, but have to give 'em time - no one's gonna commit to such heresy on a whim. The sim - and the standard equations of motion i've used in those calcs - are not amenable to error, so far as i'm aware. It's watertight and hermetically sealed. No energy or momentum can get in or out without being explicitly measured. The ONLY form of energy the motor is able to provide is torque * angle. I AM very much amenable to error - no one will be more surprised than me if this turns out to be legit - but all indications so far are that it is! On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 1:37 PM Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:06 AM Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Sorry to bump my own thread, bad form.. >> > > Some suggestions: > > Look up Frank Grimer. He hangs out at the Besseler Wheel forum: > https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/ and will be delighted to hear of > your discovery. > > and > > Contact the manufacturer of your sim software and have his engineers > explain why his program gives such a clearly impossible result. > > Warm Regards. > > Terry > > PS You'll get nowhere in the "not the Steorn" forum. They're devout > septics. >
